The conspiracy of "Saint Paul"

[kasalt]

Paul claimed to be an apostle in his letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1:1&version=KJV)), but later on, in his second letter to Timothy, Paul declared that "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (2 Timothy 1:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%201:15&version=AMP)). Ephesus was, at the time, the largest city in Asia, so this means that at some point after he wrote his epistle to them, the Ephesians, for some reason, ceased to regard him as a genuine apostle. Note that he does not say that the believers in Asia abandoned the Christian faith, and he does not say that they abandoned the original Apostles of Jesus. Paul says only that the believers in Asia abandoned him. For some reason, the Ephesians ceased to regard Paul as a genuine Christian leader.

The book of Revelation, allegedly written by the Apostle John, starts off with the resurrected Jesus instructing the author to send messages to seven churches within Asia (Revelation 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1&version=KJV)). The first Asian church to be given a message is the church at Ephesus. If Paul had been a genuine apostle, then surely the resurrected Jesus would have reprimanded the Asians for abandoning his genuine apostle. After all, it was the resurrected Jesus who allegedly appeared to Paul (then known as Saul) which led to his supposed conversion and eventual commission as an apostle. However, turn to Revelation 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2&version=KJV) and read how the resurrected Jesus commended the Ephesians:"I know...that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false."
So in essence, this is how the conversation went:

Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Jesus."
The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not."
Resurrected Jesus to the Ephesians: "Well done!"

I would be tempted to declare the case closed based on this evidence alone, but of course, there are a number of apparent objections that can be raised. I will address these objections as they are presented. For now, I would like to know what mainstream Christians and others on this forum have to say about the information that has been presented thus far.

[clachan]

Paul claimed to be an apostle in his letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1:1&version=KJV)), but later on, in his second letter to Timothy, Paul declared that "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (2 Timothy 1:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%201:15&version=AMP)). Ephesus was, at the time, the largest city in Asia, so this means that at some point after he preached there, the Ephesians, for some reason, ceased to regard him as a genuine apostle.

The book of Revelation, allegedly written by one of the original twelve Apostles--the Apostle John--starts off with the resurrected Jesus instructing the author to send messages to seven churches within Asia (Revelation 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1&version=KJV)). The first Asian church to be given a message is the church at Ephesus. If Paul had been a genuine apostle, then surely the resurrected Jesus would have reprimanded the Asians for abandoning his genuine apostle. After all, it was the resurrected Jesus who allegedly appeared to Paul (then known as Saul) which led to his conversion and eventual commission as an apostle (Ephesians 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1:1&version=KJV)). However, turn to Revelation 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2&version=KJV) and read how the resurrected Jesus commended the Ephesians:"I know...that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false."
So in essence, this is how the conversation went:

Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Jesus."
The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not."
Resurrected Jesus to the Ephesians: "Well done!"

I would be tempted to declare the case closed based on this evidence alone, but of course, there are a number of objections that can be raised. I will address these objections as they are presented. For now, I would like to know what the mainstream Christians and others on this forum have to say about the information that has been presented thus far.




I tend to agree with you on this,though Iam not a Bible scholar nor a historian

Saul of Tarsus was a pharisee who never met Jesus apart from his claim to have seen him in a vision.

I can only say that i believe in Christ,as far as Saul is concerned im not prepared to accept him over and above James brother of Jesus,how come Saul prvailed while James sank into obscurity ?

[jesusistruth]

You'd expect that both Luke and Peter (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:15&version=KJV)would know who's an apostle and who's not.

[sofa king]

who never met Jesus apart from his claim to have seen him in a vision.



likes millions of others over the past 2000 years

Paul/Saul is nothing special.

The guy put Jesus' bodyguard in the position of head of the church.

[kasalt]

Saul of Tarsus was a pharisee who never met Jesus apart from his claim to have seen him in a vision.

I can only say that i believe in Christ,as far as Saul is concerned im not prepared to accept him over and above James brother of Jesus,how come Saul prevailed while James sank into obscurity ?

Good point. With Paul, we are supposed to believe that a man who never knew Jesus and who started out persecuting his followers went on to write almost half of the New Testament while the original Apostles of Jesus faded into nearly complete obscurity! In my opinion, this seems completely counter-intuitive.

It may have been that Paul, while starting out persecuting the Church, eventually decided, "If you can't beat them, join them", so he faked conversion and asserted his leadership in the early Church, after which he inserted his own teachings--at least some of which were contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the original Apostles.

The book of Acts was obviously written in part to smooth over the rocky relationship that Paul had with the original Twelve. The book of Acts does mention that the Twelve were initially wary of Paul, admitting that they were uncertain of the genuineness of his conversion (Acts 9:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209:26&version=KJV)). But as the narrative progresses, Acts presents Paul as an apostle in good standing with the original Twelve. No mention is made in Acts of the schism between Paul and Peter that Paul described in chapter 2 of his epistle to the Galatians. In fact, Paul even went so far as to state:"But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=peter&version1=9&searchtype=all&bookset=10&limit=bookset)).
Clearly, Peter was not on good terms with Paul, and yet we are supposed to believe that in his own epistles, Peter declared Paul's writings to be on a par with scripture! Here is the specific passage in question:"[O]ur dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 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" (II Peter 3:15-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:15-16&version=NIV)).
Here we are supposed to believe that Peter referred to Paul as "our dear brother", and that Peter lauded the writings of Paul--even as Paul was bashing Peter in those very same writings! It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that most scholars today are of the opinion that the epistles attributed to Peter are Pseudepigraph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia works. Even Roman Catholic theologians and scholars who believe that Peter was their first pope accept that the epistles that are attributed to Peter in the New Testament were in fact written by someone else!

[kasalt]

You'd expect that both Luke and Peter (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:15&version=KJV)would know who's an apostle and who's not.

And you would expect that Jesus would know even better than Luke or Peter who is a false apostle and who is not, wouldn't you?

Allow me to repeat this for you, since you apparently missed it the first time:

Paul says to the Asians: "I am an Apostle." (Ephesians 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1:1&version=KJV))
The Asians reply to Paul: "No you're not!" (2 Timothy 1:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%201:15&version=AMP))
Jesus says to the Asians: "You got that right!" (Revelation 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2&version=KJV))

I would add that there are very good reasons for suspecting that Peter did not write the epistles that are attributed to him. This article sums up the evidence quite well:First epistle of Peter

Most critical scholars are skeptical that the apostle Simon Peter, the fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, actually wrote the epistle, because of the urbane cultured style of the Greek and the lack of any personal detail suggesting contact with the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The letter contains about thirty-five references to the Hebrew Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, all of which, however, come from the Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia translation, an unlikely source for historical Peter the apostle, but appropriate for a Hellenized audience; thus the use of the Septuagint helps define the audience. The Septuagint was a Greek translation that had been created at Alexandria for the use of those Jews who could not easily read the Hebrew and Aramaic of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh and for proselytes.

Second epistle of Peter

The Second Epistle of Peter opens by identifying the author as “Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1) (spelling the name differently from 1 Peter or the rest of the New Testament).

Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle Pseudepigraph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Epistle of Jude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed Second Coming of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and weak external support. In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:15-16&version=KJV)), [and] his implication that the Apostolic generation has passed (2 Peter 3:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:4&version=KJV))...
Source: Authorship of the Petrine epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jesusistruth]

Well, in either case, you should be more concerned with that unbelievers will burn in the lake of fire. Or do you want to question the validity of Revelation?

[fist fury]

So we find out that Romeo and Juliet was not written by a man named Shakespeare, but instead by several other authors. Fiction is still fiction, get it?

[daro2096]

If Paul is false we can throw out half of the new testament. Then we can throw out the two books of Peter because he endorses Paul. Oh hang on, Luke talks about Paul so bye bye Acts and bye bye the gospel of Luke.

[drakul]

Good topic Ksalt - Thanks for bringing it up.

I think St. PAUL is one of those Agents of Influence who `saw the light' and was sent to take control of the budding Christian religion and distort the Master's teaching. Do you notice Paul almost never quotes any of Jesus words or teachings??? Strange. No it's all about PAUL and Paulisms. For example, Paul puts women and slaves back in their place. :(

[michael christopher]

Well, in either case, you should be more concerned with that unbelievers will burn in the lake of fire. Or do you want to question the validity of Revelation?

Why aren't you more concerned with the fact that the Bible, which is supposed to be the infallible word of God, directly contradicts itself hundreds if not thousands of times?

[kasalt]

If Paul is false we can throw out half of the new testament. Then we can throw out the two books of Peter because he endorses Paul. Oh hang on, Luke talks about Paul so bye bye Acts and bye bye the gospel of Luke.

I realize that you are probably being sarcastic, but even if I were to take you literally, it may be that you are still right. Christians should ask themselves, "Where did we get our New Testament canon? How did Christians come to decide which writings are inspired scripture and which aren't?" If you don't know, I'll be happy to tell you.

The earliest Christian writer to mention four gospels is Irenaeus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, c. 160 AD (as stated in his Against Heresies 3.11.8 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html)), so by at least his time the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were well established and considered to be scripture on a par with the Old Testament.

The earliest point at which we come to an attempt to establish of a New Testament canon that begins to roughly approximate the list of books that we have in our New Testament today was put forward by Origen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in the 2nd century, AD. His list differed from ours in that he did not include the books of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation. Additionally, his list included as canonical a book called The Shepherd of Hermas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia--a book of prophecy which many early Christians regarded as inspired instead of the book of Revelation.

It wasn't until the year 367 AD that a bishop of Alexandria in Egypt put forward a list of New Testament books that matches the list we have today. That bishop's name was Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In the year 382, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus promulgated a New Testament canon which contained a list of books that was identical to the list put forward by Athanasius. The North African Synod of Hippo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, in 393, approved the 27-book New Testament canon.

Aside from helping to establish the canon of the New Testament, Athanasius is also remembered for his attendance at the First Council of Nicaea. Athanasius attended the Nicaean Council in part to argue against Arius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and his doctrine that Christ is of a distinct substance from the Father. (Athanasius died at age 80 in the year 373.) The First Council of Nicaea was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in A.D. 325, some 42 years before Athanasius drew up his list of the New Testament canon.

"What's Kasalt's point?" you may be asking yourself. My point is that the canon of the New Testament was established by a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church who was in communion with the bishop of Rome and the Roman Emperor Constantine! That ought to give the Christian fundamentalist anti-Catholic Pope-bashers some pause for thought!

Getting back to how this relates to the topic at hand, if St. Paul was a false apostle, then there goes nearly half of the New Testament which was written by Paul. And as Daro wrote, there goes the second epistle of Peter because it endorses Paul. Acts also endorses Paul, and Acts was written by Luke, so there goes Acts and the gospel of Luke.

Perhaps it would be for the better if Christians did reject those books. After all, that's the way it was among the first generation of Christians. Some of the very earliest believers in Jesus were called Ebionites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_%28sect%29. These believers rejected the teachings of Paul, whom they regarded as an apostate to the Law of Moses. Apparently, they accepted only some variation of the gospel of Matthew along with the Old Testament as their sacred canon.

Perhaps today's Christians should consider doing that as well. Going back to basics might not be a bad idea.

[drael]

Well, in either case, you should be more concerned with that unbelievers will burn in the lake of fire. Or do you want to question the validity of Revelation?

Oh, look more judgement, fear and hatred. Satanism at its finest. Enjoy your lake of fire, say hi to your overlord, the devil for me!

(Sorry for going off topic, guys)


If Paul is false we can throw out half of the new testament. Then we can throw out the two books of Peter because he endorses Paul. Oh hang on, Luke talks about Paul so bye bye Acts and bye bye the gospel of Luke.

So you are denying the argument, because you are personally unable to question the king james NT, even if it has been largely corrupted by man?

Well at least your honest!

Its funny how half of the NT, is jesus preaching love, and the other half is secondary people preaching hellfire, sacrifices, slaves and damnation. Not hard to see the corruption really.

The devil really is an amazing trickster.

[kasalt]

Well, in either case, you should be more concerned with that unbelievers will burn in the lake of fire. Or do you want to question the validity of Revelation?

It would appear that either Paul's writings are false and the book of Revelation is true, or the book of Revelation is false and Paul's writings are true. Which do you think it is?

Of course, there is a third possibility: That both Paul's writings AND the book of Revelation are false.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think. Judge for yourself; but judge based on the evidence, not on blind faith:

Rush - Show Don't Tell
Rush - Show Don't Tell - YouTube

[1964]

It would appear that either Paul's writings are false and the book of Revelation is true, or the book of Revelation is false and Paul's writings are true. Which do you think it is?

Of course, there is a third possibility: That both Paul's writings AND the book of Revelation are false.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think. Judge for yourself; but judge based on the evidence, not on blind faith:

Rush - Show Don't Tell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8FBjXaoDTw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8FBjXaoDTw

You haven't given evidence of anything. You've created a picture for yourself that isn't described in Scripture, but that's built purely on your own assumptions. You've assumed that the Ephesians deserted Paul because Paul was a false apostle. You've assumed that when Jesus commended the Ephesians for testing false apostles, then Jesus must have been talking about Paul. It's all assumption on your part, and you present it as though it's fact. Peter also talked about how some of Paul's teachings were very difficult. If you were looking at this with an honest mind, then that would present itself as another obvious possibility as to why so many people deserted Paul. But you seem personally invested, instead, in proving that Paul was a false apostle. And so you tweak and twist the Scriptures to promote your own desired point of view.

I don't know what your reasons are, but it's a very dangerous thing you're doing. Very dangerous.

[kasalt]

You haven't given evidence of anything. You've created a picture for yourself that isn't described in Scripture, but that's built purely on your own assumptions. You've assumed that the Ephesians deserted Paul because Paul was a false apostle. You've assumed that when Jesus commended the Ephesians for testing false apostles, then Jesus must have been talking about Paul. It's all assumption on your part, and you present it as though it's fact.

You could be correct. It is not my intention to tell you what to think, but I do feel like I have been unduly forceful on this issue. Like I said in my last post, judge for yourself based on the evidence.

So let's quickly review some of the evidence that I have put forward. Paul stated that "all those in Asia" turned away from him. After this turning away from Paul by the Asians, the author of the book of Revelation sends them a message, allegedly given to him by the resurrected Jesus, commending them for turning away from false apostles. Now, it would seem to me that if Paul were a genuine apostle, Jesus would have reprimanded them for turning away from a genuine apostle. Instead, he says nothing about that, and commends them for turning away from false ones. I can see how you would avoid making that connection because Paul's name is not specifically mentioned in Revelation, but in my opinion, the implication is obvious, intentional, and undeniable. I do think that the Asians would have been reprimanded by the author of Revelation if the author of Revelation considered Paul to be a genuine apostle.

I should add, in case you are not aware, that I am by no means the originator of this idea that Paul was a pseudo-apostle. I have already posted on this thread that a number of sects among the earliest Christians also considered this to be the case, as do their contemporary heirs. It is from these sources that I learned about this issue in the first place. It is actually a more common opinion than you might imagine.

Peter also talked about how some of Paul's teachings were very difficult. If you were looking at this with an honest mind, then that would present itself as another obvious possibility as to why so many people deserted Paul. But you seem personally invested, instead, in proving that Paul was a false apostle. And so you tweak and twist the Scriptures to promote your own desired point of view.

Yes, and as I have already posted, there are substantial reasons to believe that the two epistles allegedly written by Peter were actually written by someone else who was obviously more favourably disposed to Paul. I will bring out more evidence in future posts to show that there was much more to the schism between Peter and Paul than Paul alluded to in Galatians 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:7-14&version=KJV).

I don't know what your reasons are, but it's a very dangerous thing you're doing. Very dangerous.

Mate, opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one; and there's no reason for you to consider my opinion to be dangerous, any more than I should consider your opinion to be dangerous. Opinions are not dangerous. You are free to think and believe whatever you like, as am I, and I wouldn't have it any other way. :)

[1964]

You could be correct. It is not my intention to tell you what to think, but I do feel like I have been unduly forceful on this issue. Like I said in my last post, judge for yourself based on the evidence.

So let's quickly review some of the evidence that I have put forward. Paul stated that "all those in Asia" turned away from him. After this turning away from Paul by the Asians, the author of the book of Revelation sends them a message, allegedly given to him by the resurrected Jesus, commending them for turning away from false apostles. Now, it would seem to me that if Paul were a genuine apostle, Jesus would have reprimanded them for turning away from a genuine apostle. Instead, he says nothing about that, and commends them for turning away from false ones. I can see how you would avoid making that connection because Paul's name is not specifically mentioned in Revelation, but in my opinion, the implication is obvious, intentional, and undeniable. I do think that the Asians would have been reprimanded by the author of Revelation if the author of Revelation considered Paul to be a genuine apostle.

I should add, in case you are not aware, that I am by no means the originator of this idea that Paul was a pseudo-apostle. I have already posted on this thread that a number of sects among the earliest Christians also considered this to be the case, as do their contemporary heirs. It is from these sources that I learned about this issue in the first place. It is actually a more common opinion than you might imagine.



Yes, and as I have already posted, there are substantial reasons to believe that the two epistles allegedly written by Peter were actually written by someone else who was obviously more favourably disposed to Paul. I will bring out more evidence in future posts to show that there was much more to the schism between Peter and Paul than Paul alluded to in Galatians 2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:7-14&version=KJV).



Mate, opinions are like arseholes: everyone has one; and there's no reason for you to consider my opinion to be dangerous, any more than I should consider your opinion to be dangerous. Opinions are not dangerous. You are free to think and believe whatever you like, as am I, and I wouldn't have it any other way. :)

When I say that what you're doing is dangerous, I'm talking about the particular method by which you've gone about forming this belief of yours (regarding Paul). The mind and knowledge of God are literally endless/fathomless. The truth can't be arrived at by simply trying to connect a few dots. And yes, if our means of trying to discern the truth is faulty, then the false opinions we form after that can be extremely dangerous.

Also, I know the argument is common, and I know it's old - about Paul being a false apostle. That doesn't serve as any sort of evidence that the accusation against him is either true, or not true. There are both truths and lies that are thousands of years old. There has also always been more people out there who are peddling lies, rather than the truth, so the fact that this accusation against Paul is so common holds no weight for me.

But about your means of trying to discern the truth .....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're trying to prove this matter with a lot of he-said-she-said: Paul said this, Peter said that, etc. In the meantime, God has given His people a very real Armor that is intended to protect His people. If Paul were a false apostle, then even Paul could not stand up against God's Armor. Give me a list of those of Paul's teachings that you think are false and contradict the Word of God, and the Word of God will judge whether Paul was a false apostle. I'm very serious about wanting to see your list, since the accusation is such a serious one; and arriving at the wrong conclusion will have dire consequences. I'll keep an eye on the thread, waiting for your list.

In the meantime, there's one more thing I'd like to leave with you. Since it is Christ, Himself, Who commended the Ephesians for testing apostles to see whether they were false, then the Ephesians had to have tested people according to the Word of God - which is to test people by the Word of God. Meaning that you, yourself, are not testing Paul the way the Ephesians would have tested an apostle - and for which Christ commended them. This is what I mean when I say that your particular method of trying to judge this matter is extremely dangerous for you. You're giving in to the temptation to reason according to your own wisdom, not trusting that God's wisdom far surpasses our own. If you're not wearing and using the Armor that God's provided for you, trusting in your own armor instead, then it's guaranteed that you'll be deceived.

I'll check back for the list.

[dedicate]

kesalt, -- you're just propagating religious-paranoia. In other words, religious propaganda. You do this on all your threads. You come up with objections that are not really objections. I think you even have the audacity to say, "These are the facts." Everything you present is borrowed from other people, and their opinions about "the facts".

But all and all, it appears to be a non-issue.

[kasalt]

kesalt, -- you're just propagating religious-paranoia. In other words, religious propaganda. You do this on all your threads. You come up with objections that are not really objections. I think you even have the audacity to say, "These are the facts." Everything you present is borrowed from other people, and their opinions about "the facts".

Right, just like my thread on Elizabeth Clare Prophet (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79249) was "propagating religious-paranoia", I suppose? Let the reader beware.

If you disagree with the substance of my arguments I would appreciate it if you would give me a substantive argument in return, rather than just baseless contradiction. If you can convince me that the substance of your argument outweighs the substance of mine, I will abandon my position. It's as simple as that.

[turquoisefire777]

paul was a false prophet who thwarted jesus' real teachings in such a way as to create a religion. jesus never wanted to create a religion.

Jesus The Spiritual Warrior
http://www.xeeatwelve.net/articles/jesus_warrior.htm

[drakul]

kesalt, -- you're just propagating religious-paranoia. In other words, religious propaganda. You do this on all your threads. You come up with objections that are not really objections. I think you even have the audacity to say, "These are the facts." Everything you present is borrowed from other people, and their opinions about "the facts".

But all and all, it appears to be a non-issue.


Not true - this argument against what Paul did to Christianity has been around for hundreds of years. Pres. Thomas Jefferson was one of many who spoke out against Paul and his minions takeover of the Church:

`Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there [the very words only of Jesus] stated; that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.'

Jefferson also wrote that Paul was wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

[drakul]

Paul forced women out of the church hierarchy:

A verse in Paul's letter to Timothy[1 Tim 2:12 KJV] is often used as the main biblical authority for prohibiting women from becoming ordained clergy and or holding certain other positions of ministry and leadership in Christianity—solely on the basis of gender, though Paul's authorship of this letter is debated. The Letter to Timothy is also often used by many churches to deny women a vote in church affairs, reject women from serving as teachers of adult Bible classes, prevent them from serving as missionaries, and generally disenfranchises women from the duties and privileges of church leadership.[45]

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
—1 Timothy 2:11-14, KJV


Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jesusistruth]

the great reformer of the Jewish religion

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

And who is Jefferson to decide who is the "real" anti-christ?

[sofa king]

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.




umm, not mentioned in the post you were replying to.

Yehoshua ben Joesph was a Jew.

The OT states that the Jews are the chosen people.

Therefore, Yehoshua ben Joseph was sent to...








wait for it...





reform the Jews.


wow. what a simple concept that Christians cant handle.

[jesusistruth]

umm, not mentioned in the post you were replying to.

Yehoshua ben Joesph was a Jew.

The OT states that the Jews are the chosen people.

Therefore, Yehoshua ben Joseph was sent to...


wait for it...

reform the Jews.


wow. what a simple concept that Christians cant handle.

He was primarily sent to be sacrificed for our sins, and calling him just a reformer of a religion is really an understatement. Nor was he really sent to reform anything, but to fulfill.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[sofa king]

He was primarily sent to be sacrificed for our sins, and calling him just a reformer of a religion is really an understatement. Nor was he really sent to reform anything, but to fulfill.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.



ah, more quoting of a book written by Paul the pretender and editied by the Vatican for its`own use.

i hope you realize that the more time you spend memorizing the book of lies, the less time you spend having Him in your heart.

those who memorize a corrupted book of lies are doomed to a lake of fire.

[jesusistruth]

those who memorize a corrupted book of lies are doomed to a lake of fire.

ah, more quoting of a book written by Paul the pretender and editied by the Vatican for its`own use.

:)

[clachan]

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

And who is Jefferson to decide who is the "real" anti-christ?

Yes,but whats any of that got to do with the pharisee Saul of Tarsus ?

[dedicate]

My point was, People will argue anything. Draw a line some-where and tell people they have to take a side. That's about all you are doing here. I choose not to have it matter, and not to take a side. If I don't like what Paul says, I don't read it. If you don't like Paul, then don't read Paul. . But why try to create riff over it? Like how the Community will split up over an understanding of Baptism; create those kinds of breaks.

There's no right answer. And I believe the people who post this sort of stuff, know there is no correct answer. If ever the statement, "The Truth is subjective" had it's place, it would be the question, "Was Paul an Apostle?" It depends on how you see it, Yes and No. Refuse to see it any other way.

[sofa king]

My point was, People will argue anything. Draw a line some-where and tell people they have to take a side. That's about all you are doing here. I choose not to have it matter, and not to take a side. If I don't like what Paul says, I don't read it. If you don't like Paul, then don't read Paul. . But why try to create riff over it? Like how the Community will split up over an understanding of Baptism; create those kinds of breaks.

There's no right answer. I think if ever the concept of "The Truth is subjective" had it's place, it would be concerning the question, "Was Paul an Apostle?".



unfortunately, some feel that questioning Paul is somehow a denial of Christ.

[drakul]

unfortunately, some feel that questioning Paul is somehow a denial of Christ.

I agree. The questioning of Paul is actually essential. It is an affirmation of the teachings of the Master - Jesus - because He put women in a high place in his ministry; whereas Paul brought them down - ultimately resulting in the remaking Mary of Magdalene as a WHORE. It is time women assumed their recognized place within the Church as they had with Jesus.

[sofa king]

I agree. The questioning of Paul is actually essential. It is an affirmation of the teachings of the Master - Jesus - because He put women in a high place in his ministry; whereas Paul brought them down - ultimately resulting in the remaking Mary of Magdalene as a WHORE. It is time women assumed their recognized place within the Church as they had with Jesus.



agreed 100%

[clachan]

I agree. The questioning of Paul is actually essential. It is an affirmation of the teachings of the Master - Jesus - because He put women in a high place in his ministry; whereas Paul brought them down - ultimately resulting in the remaking Mary of Magdalene as a WHORE. It is time women assumed their recognized place within the Church as they had with Jesus.

Well said.

[dedicate]

But there are questions and issues one may wish to take sides. Kesalt, why don't you start a thread asking the question, "Did the Annunaki write the Bible?" Tell us the Bible is a control book written by our off-planet slave masters. Over the years -- because of our slavery mentality -- we have come to worship these books written by the Annunaki Gods (Annunaki are a race of beings who occupied this planet along with us,, and maybe still do!). They have become holy books,, and all they contain is stories and rules the Annunaki had for us. Much of it has been changed and currupted over the years and the words are different than they once were,, i.e never such enphisis on Saviours and individual enlightened men, as there is today, but the book is still used to propate a popular Myth and to control the masses of slaves. It works pretty good.


That's a pretty dark outlook on things.! And it doesn't answer how one might get out of slavery. Or does it?

[kasalt]

Getting back to the topic...

It has been mentioned in an earlier post that one of the apparent purposes of the author of Acts was to smooth over the rough and rocky relationship that Paul had with the original Apostles of Jesus. However, the author seemed to slip up in a number of places. The book of Acts contains a number of factual discrepancies about Paul. These discrepancies are found both within the book of Acts itself, as well as between Acts and Paul's epistles. Here are a few examples.

One apparent contradiction is Paul's claim, recorded in Acts 22:3-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2022:3-4;&version=KJV;), that prior to his conversion, he was a student of the Jewish rabbi Gamaliel. The contradiction rests in the fact that according to Acts 5:34-42 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:34-42;&version=9;), Gamaliel warned against persecuting the Christian sect! If Gamaliel warned against persecuting Christians, and Saul supposedly was a dutiful, strictly obedient student who learned "at the feet of Gamaliel", then how was it possible that Saul found himself murdering Christians?

Another contradiction is found in the accounts of Paul's conversion. The first account of Paul's conversion is given in Acts 9:3-9, and Paul's retelling of his conversion is recorded in Acts 22:6-11 and again in Acts 26:12-18. When we compare these accounts, obvious discrepancies arise:

Acts 9:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209:3-9&version=KJV) claims that the men traveling with Paul STOOD speechless, HEARING THE VOICE but NOT SEEING anyone.
Acts 22:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2022:9;&version=9;) claims that the men with traveling Paul DID NOT HEAR the voice, but they DID SEE a mysterious bright light.
Acts 26:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2026:14;&version=9;) claims that the men traveling with Paul all FELL to the ground and DID HEAR the voice.

Did the men with Paul see anything, or did they not see anything?
Did the men with Paul hear a voice, or did they not hear a voice?
Did the men with Paul remain standing, or did they fall to the ground along with Paul?

As you can see, each account gives conflicting details. These inconsistencies may seem trivial to some, but they are not trivial in light of the claim that the Bible is the Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, divinely-inspired word of God.

[dedicate]

unfortunately, some feel that questioning Paul is somehow a denial of Christ.

Maybe it is a denial of Christ. Thing is I can't live my life on what other people feel is correct. Therefore, I don't expect other people to live according to how I see things.

Moving people outside your church, just because they have slight differences in understanding, or maybe they ask too many quesions, is a good way to already have lost the church before the battle.


Now, I can understand some sort of interesting debate, if someone were to suggest Jesus be taken out of the New Testament. That the teachings of Jesus do not belong in the Bible. That could be a good thread. Or start on an easier note,,, and suggest the book of Leviticus is not actually part of the Bible or ask if Hebrews was written by some-one other than Paul.

[kasalt]

Thomas Jefferson was one of many who spoke out against Paul and his minions takeover of the Church:

`Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there [the very words only of Jesus] stated; that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.'

Jefferson also wrote that Paul was wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."

Good points. Here are some additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson regarding Paul:"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."
Source: http://www.earlyamericanhistory.net/quotes.htm

[sofa king]

Maybe it is a denial of Christ. Thing is I can't live my life on what other people feel is correct.



but yet, you will live you life according to what Paul thinks is correct.

where is the difference?

Paul wasn't even there. Neither was Constantine. Or John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Nor was King James, Luther, Smith or any other number of people that claim to have the "inside track" on what Jesus said.

[dedicate]

but yet, you will live you life according to what Paul thinks is correct.
--

Why do you say that? Because I have not publically denounced him? you say I live my life according to what Paul thinks is correct? What makes you say that?

To tell you the truth, I don't know what Paul thinks is correct. So, I don't know if I live according to what he thinks or not. You say, I don't know the Bible then, and shouldn't be talking on the thread. But..

I know the story of Paul,, as told in Acts. That's enough. Maybe the guy Paul in Acts is not the writer of some of those letters? Maybe all those letters were not written by the same person. Maybe Jesus had an Apostle known as Paul that we don't know about... like they all seemed to have had two names. Maybe these two different Pauls get taken as one Paul. Maybe there are three Pauls of the NT?

[kasalt]

I choose not to have it matter, and not to take a side. If I don't like what Paul says, I don't read it. If you don't like Paul, then don't read Paul.

Why don't you apply that same logic to this thread?

You're being a tad hypocritical, I think. Let me turn your own advice back on you: If you don't like this thread, then don't read this thread.

[dedicate]

Why don't you apply that same logic to this thread?
--

I have. I'm almost done with you.

If you don't like this thread, then don't read this thread.

Like I said, I'll probably move on.

Did anybody bring up the fact that Hebrews may not have been written by Paul? I believe in most KJV introductions it is stated the actual author is not known, but merely attributed to Paul, someone name Paul.

Does anyone know anything about the Beatles being the Four Horsemen of the Appocalypse?

[yhwhschild]

Getting back to the topic...

It has been mentioned in an earlier post that one of the apparent purposes of the author of Acts was to smooth over the rough and rocky relationship that Paul had with the original Apostles of Jesus. However, the author seemed to slip up in a number of places. The book of Acts contains a number of factual discrepancies about Paul. These discrepancies are found both within the book of Acts itself, as well as between Acts and Paul's epistles. Here are a few examples.

One apparent contradiction is Paul's claim, recorded in Acts 22:3-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2022:3-4;&version=KJV;), that prior to his conversion, he was a student of the Jewish rabbi Gamaliel. The contradiction rests in the fact that according to Acts 5:34-42 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:34-42;&version=9;), Gamaliel warned against persecuting the Christian sect! If Gamaliel warned against persecuting Christians, and Saul supposedly was a dutiful, strictly obedient student who learned "at the feet of Gamaliel", then how was it possible that Saul found himself murdering Christians?

Another contradiction is found in the accounts of Paul's conversion. The first account of Paul's conversion is given in Acts 9:3-9, and Paul's retelling of his conversion is recorded in Acts 22:6-11 and again in Acts 26:12-18. When we compare these accounts, obvious discrepancies arise:

Acts 9:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209:3-9&version=KJV) claims that the men traveling with Paul STOOD speechless, HEARING THE VOICE but NOT SEEING anyone.
Acts 22:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2022:9;&version=9;) claims that the men with traveling Paul DID NOT HEAR the voice, but they DID SEE a mysterious bright light.
Acts 26:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2026:14;&version=9;) claims that the men traveling with Paul all FELL to the ground and DID HEAR the voice.

Did the men with Paul see anything, or did they not see anything?
Did the men with Paul hear a voice, or did they not hear a voice?
Did the men with Paul remain standing, or did they fall to the ground along with Paul?

As you can see, each account gives conflicting details. These inconsistencies may seem trivial to some, but they are not trivial in light of the claim that the Bible is the inerrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy), divinely-inspired word of God.

Just a thought mate the Scriptures are the innerant word of YHWH. This is the Tenakh (Old Testament) not the "New Testament". Even Paul commended the Bareans on checking up on his letters with the Scriptures to make sure what he said was confirmed in them. Most of Pauls writings do not actually say what they seem to say but the lawlessness of modern Christianity tends to ignore this fact.

Also the Jesuits purposefully made 1000s of copies of the NT writings under their agenda made in the Council of Trent. This was done I believe to undermine the truth contained in the NT writings and also change their content and context, while promoting the agenda and teachings of the Mystery Babylon religion.

[clachan]

--

I have. I'm almost done with you.



Like I said, I'll probably move on.

Did anybody bring up the fact that Hebrews may not have been written by Paul? I believe in most KJV introductions it is stated the actual author is not known, but merely attributed to Paul, someone name Paul.

Does anyone know anything about the Beatles being the Four Horsemen of the Appocalypse?

Which one is Ringo ?:D

Saw a recent photo of McCartney the other day,looks more like a freaking tortoise than a horseman.

The 4 tortoises of the apocalypse dosen,t quite invoke the same fear does it ?:D

[sofa king]

--



Does anyone know anything about the Beatles being the Four Horsemen of the Appocalypse?


there was 5 Beatles. So that doesn't work.

[sofa king]

Saw a recent photo of McCartney the other day,looks more like a freaking tortoise than a horseman.



Paul needs to be careful.

Next time he goes on the Inuit seal hunt, they might mistake him for a Walrus.

[clachan]

Paul needs to be careful.

Next time he goes on the Inuit seal hunt, they might mistake him for a Walrus.

Its the hairdo that throws me......at first glance he looks like my auntie Lil.

[kasalt]

Give me a list of those of Paul's teachings that you think are false and contradict the Word of God, and the Word of God will judge whether Paul was a false apostle. I'm very serious about wanting to see your list, since the accusation is such a serious one; and arriving at the wrong conclusion will have dire consequences. I'll keep an eye on the thread, waiting for your list.

My postings on this thread are a work in progress, and I like to put some actual research into my posts, so coming up with a full list is going to take quite some time. However, there is one important point of contradiction between what Paul taught and what Jesus taught that I can bring up now.

In Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, he had this to say:
"No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1 Corinthians 12:3)
It is based partly on this simple claim from Paul that criminals in prison who wish to feign conversion in order to receive lighter treatment will declare that Jesus is their lord. Likewise, George W. Bush, while running for the presidential election in 2000, declared in a presidential debate that Jesus was his favourite "political philosopher", because Jesus had, to quote him, "changed my life". That was all many evangelical Christians needed to hear in order for them to help elect him to the presidency.

In direct contrast to this claim of Paul that anyone who says "Jesus is Lord" does so by the Holy Spirit, Matthew's gospel quotes Jesus as saying:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23)
According to Jesus, these people will be saying that Jesus is Lord, but they will not be doing so by the power of the Holy Spirit.

[dedicate]

This is what I'm talking about, kesalt. Sorry about being so blunt, but I must make it known.

What you are bringing up here is more stupidity. You know what you are doing. It works on the average Christian, who it is proved doesn't understand algebra, and they will take what you present here and either say, "Paul was a jerk" or "Those are twisting of texts".

But you know the texts do not contradict each other. A man who professes Jesus as Lord is saying so by the power of Holy Ghost. This is what you say, Paul says.

Then you bring up the text that states not all people who say "Lord Lord" will make it to the kingdom.

Well... Not all people who have a touch of the spirit are going to make it to the kingdom. That's all. No big deal. In other words, someone who says, Jesus is Lord.... by the Holy Spirit,,, is not necessarily going to Heaven. Don't make a big thing about it. You are just going to confuse the Christians here .

In other words, knowing or feeling the Holy Sprit does not guarentee entrance to the kingdom. Paul never says here it will,, he just said that one acknowledges Jesus as Lord by the power of the Holy Sprit... He doesn't say this will guarentee you entrance into a heaven afterlife.

According to Jesus, these people will be saying that Jesus is Lord, but they will not be doing so by the power of the Holy Spirit. -- IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. What he is saying is that many people who profess Jesus are workers of eniquity,, and (As Paul indicates...__) workers of eniquity often have some first hand knowledge of the Holy Spirit, like when they say, "Jesus is Lord".

[kasalt]

Does anyone know anything about the Beatles being the Four Horsemen of the Appocalypse?

Can I have some of the drugs you're taking? Because it must be some powerfully good stuff.

I'd hate to think you came up with that while sober.

[kasalt]

This is what I'm talking about, kesalt. Sorry about being so blunt, but I must make it known.

What you are bringing up here is more stupidity.

Are you suggesting that you think what I am bringing up is wrong?

There's no right answer.

If "there's no right answer" then your answer isn't right either. So why do you bother answering? Help me understand your logic here.

But you know the texts do not contradict each other.

Don't you think it is presumptuous of you to tell me what I know or don't know? You don't know me inside and out, so I do not think that you are really in a position to tell me what I know or do not know.

The fact is that there most certainly are contradictions in the texts, and since you obviously weren't aware of that, here are just a few of examples of them as demonstrated in this brief video:

Link to video
An Atheist Reads the Bible - 8 - The Empty Tomb - YouTube
Not all people who have a touch of the spirit are going to make it to the kingdom. That's all. No big deal. In other words, someone who says, Jesus is Lord.... by the Holy Spirit, is not necessarily going to Heaven. Don't make a big thing about it.

It's like I mentioned in my last post, all a politician needs to do is pay lip-service to Jesus and he's in with most born-again Christians. That's what Bush did, and that was a significant part of what got him elected to the presidency. Criminals do it often in order to receive lenient treatment."President Bush's successful reelection effort owed much to the support he received from highly religious voters, especially white evangelical Protestants."
Source: http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=103
"Indeed, in many respects, white evangelicals have become the bedrock of the GOP. In the 2004 election, they were the largest single demographic group among Bush voters, constituting fully 35% of his total."
Source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/22/will-white--evangelicals--desert-the-gop

[dedicate]

Well.. lets see... I get the feeling from your posts, kesalt,, you are against the idea of religion. You don't like religion (whatever that word might mean to you). Your smarter than the average person,, and you don't fall for the stuff that most of us do fall for. But for some reason you have this ax to grind concerning religion,, so you have devoted some of your intelligence to creating controversy in those fields of study.

Unfortunately this is clouding your ability to see things correctly.-- this will to defame..

This is why I say, "You know what you are doing".. You don't believe any of the Bible anyway. To you Paul is as much a false apostle as is any of the other ones,,,, because ... to you .. it's all a sham, there are no true apostles.

To you it's all a Con. To you all the Prophets and all the Apostles are make believe things... so I ask you why would you create controversy about who was a true apostle? It's all a lie,, right?

If I'm wrong about this image I have about you, then I'm sorry. I'll think and ask more questions before I jump to conclusions next time.


But this attempting to tear down something you don't even relate to,,, makes no sense to me. You have no interest in religion,, so what makes you think you can understand what people are talkinga about? I don't go to a music school and start telling them what music is. I don't get into conversations with musicians about music.. none of it makes any sense to me,, music seems like a big contradiction to me.

I don't waiste my time with things I have no interest in, like music theory and music history. You should maybe see the Bible and religion the same way..--- nothing there for me, I'll leave it alone.

[drakul]

Source: http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=103
[/INDENT]"Indeed, in many respects, white evangelicals have become the bedrock of the GOP. In the 2004 election, they were the largest single demographic group among Bush voters, constituting fully 35% of his total."
Source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/22/will-white--evangelicals--desert-the-gop


That's why they will keep the floodgates of legal and illegal immigration open - submerge the White Christian American voting bloc.

I am not an evangelical - I don't even attend church - but the majority of people who voted Bush into the presidency are just going for what on the surface appeared to be the lesser of 2 evils. `What, he mentioned Jesus Christ once? OK let's vote for Bush'. That's about all we get now in terms of a media morality show. There is no more attempt at any kind of in depth character analysis on the candidates for the most important office in the nation.

[drakul]

Back on topic - St Paul has provided much food for the naysayers like Acharya S - The Christ Conspiracy - to claim Jesus never existed. Why? Because Paul never mentions Jesus except in perfunctory closings to his letters - like `in Jesus name'. Paul never quotes the sayings of the Master, never interprets his teachings in any of his many letters. And why is that? People ask.

Acharya brings up the point that even though Paul was alive during Jesus time, yet he provides no support for the existence of Jesus. He does not describe his physical existence. Nothing. Paul has his own version of re-making Christianity. :(

[sofa king]

Unfortunately this is clouding your ability to see things correctly.--



and what is the correct way to see it? Your way?

I see who you are now. A thumper of bibles whose view of God and Jesus is the only correct one. Everyone else is "stupid"

Pride is a sin.

[drakul]

It is Paul that provides the most potent points for those who deny the historicity of Jesus. From The Christ Conspiracy pgs 32-33

`The Pauline epistles in the NT are the earliest Christian texts, yet they never discuss a historical background of Jesus. Even though Paul purportedly lived during and after Jesus and surely would have known about his master's miraculous life. As Dujardin points out, the Pauline literature does not refer to Pilate or the Romans or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin or Herod, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the PASSION. It also never makes any allusion to them. Lastly, Paul mentions absolutely NONE of the events of the PASSION.'

Is it conceivable that a preacher of Jesus could go throughout the world to convert people without ever quoting a single one of Jesus' sayings?

IF PAUL KNEW OF A MIRACLE-WORKING JESUS WHO COULD FEED THE MULTITUDE WITH A FEW LOAVES AND FISHES, WHO COULD COMMAND THE GRAVE TO OPEN, WHO COULD CLEANSE THE LAND OF THE FOULEST DISEASE OF LEPROSY, is it conceivable that he would never once refer to them in all his preachings? The position then, that there is not a single saying of Jesus in the gospels which is quoted by Paul in his many epistles in unassailable and certainly fatal to the historicity of Jesus.'

Acharya and many other Anti-Christs use Paul as a valid launching pad to deny Jesus. But there may have been another reason Paul never mentions the teaching of the Master - because his agenda was to subvert Christianity from within. The oldest game in the book.

[daro2096]

It is Paul that provides the most potent points for those who deny the historicity of Jesus. From The Christ Conspiracy pgs 32-33

`The Pauline epistles in the NT are the earliest Christian texts, yet they never discuss a historical background of Jesus. Even though Paul purportedly lived during and after Jesus and surely would have known about his master's miraculous life. As Dujardin points out, the Pauline literature does not refer to Pilate or the Romans or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin or Herod, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the PASSION. It also never makes any allusion to them. Lastly, Paul mentions absolutely NONE of the events of the PASSION.'

Is it conceivable that a preacher of Jesus could go throughout the world to convert people without ever quoting a single one of Jesus' sayings?

IF PAUL KNEW OF A MIRACLE-WORKING JESUS WHO COULD FEED THE MULTITUDE WITH A FEW LOAVES AND FISHES, WHO COULD COMMAND THE GRAVE TO OPEN, WHO COULD CLEANSE THE LAND OF THE FOULEST DISEASE OF LEPROSY, is it conceivable that he would never once refer to them in all his preachings? The position then, that there is not a single saying of Jesus in the gospels which is quoted by Paul in his many epistles in unassailable and certainly fatal to the historicity of Jesus.'

Acharya and many other Anti-Christs use Paul as a valid launching pad to deny Jesus. But there may have been another reason Paul never mentions the teaching of the Master - because his agenda was to subvert Christianity from within. The oldest game in the book.

There was no need when Paul was writing his letters as the Apostles and eye witnesses were still alive. By the time the Gospels were been writen most people were dead so the oral traditions were written down so people would not forget.

[drakul]

There was no need when Paul was writing his letters as the Apostles and eye witnesses were still alive. By the time the Gospels were been writen most people were dead so the oral traditions were written down so people would not forget.

My friend Daro - Paul was traveling all over Asia Minor - preaching to people who had never even heard of Jesus, let alone knew his life story.

[daro2096]

My friend Daro - Paul was traveling all over Asia Minor - preaching to people who had never even heard of Jesus, let alone knew his life story.

Exactly. There was no need at that time to record on paper what happened. And Paul wasn't the only one preaching.

[drakul]

Exactly. There was no need at that time to record on paper what happened. And Paul wasn't the only one preaching.

Well the Bible certainly did record at least some of what happened as a result of Paul's `preaching'. He was nearly stoned, beaten and thrown out of Ephesus and other Greek cities in Asia Minor. As Ksalt said - Paul even admits in his letter that some of the churches had rejected him. No wonder. He wasn't preaching the teachings of Jesus so why should they?

[dedicate]

Originally Posted by dedicate

Unfortunately this is clouding your ability to see things correctly.--



and what is the correct way to see it? Your way?

I see who you are now. A thumper of bibles whose view of God and Jesus is the only correct one. Everyone else is "stupid"

Pride is a sin. --

The way to see correctly is to be unclouded in vision. When someone has an agenda or emotional charges toward a subject,, then this will cloud their vision. This is something the modern Christian often refuses to admit: they need to purify their own minds to see correctly. Maybe they just don't want to let go. I mean, heck, when someone has been holding on to something most of their life they tend to get attatched,, no matter how much of a rag it is.

If someone has no interest in religion,, or no belief in it's tenants,, then it stands to reason they will not "get" the scriptures. This is why it is best for them to either forget about it, or at least to hold off on judgement.

[kasalt]

Well.. lets see... I get the feeling from your posts, kesalt,, you are against the idea of religion. You don't like religion (whatever that word might mean to you).

Not true at all. I am not against religion per se, I am simply against all of the fraud that is being perpetuated in the name of religion. And surely you must admit that there is a lot of fraud being perpetuated in the name of religion.

Your smarter than the average person,, and you don't fall for the stuff that most of us do fall for.

I think that's fair to say.

But for some reason you have this ax to grind concerning religion,, so you have devoted some of your intelligence to creating controversy in those fields of study.

Not true at all. I have no "ax to grind" against any of the truths taught by religion, of which I believe that there are many. There are even truths to be found in the writings of Paul, which I have planned to deal with at some point during the course of this thread. But there is also plenty of room for valid criticism, and that is all I am doing here.

Unfortunately this is clouding your ability to see things correctly.-- this will to defame..

I think something has clouded your ability to see my posts correctly. And then, perhaps there is your will to defame me? Pot and kettle...

If I'm wrong about this image I have about you, then I'm sorry. I'll think and ask more questions before I jump to conclusions next time.

Yes, you are wrong about the image you have of me, and yes, you should think and ask more questions before you jump to conclusions next time.

But this attempting to tear down something you don't even relate to,,, makes no sense to me. You have no interest in religion

On the contrary, I have many interests, religion being foremost among them. You make many baseless assumptions.

[dedicate]

Not true at all. I am not against religion per se, I am simply against all of the fraud that is being perpetuated in the name of religion. And surely you must admit that there is a lot of fraud being perpetuated in the name of religion....

So you are not against religion as such. You don't see a problem with someone stating,, "Christianity,, or Islam, or Hinduism or.. represents a valid way of living" per se? In other words, that. in inself, is not the problem, but the fraud perpetuated in this name?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. But I see the solution to the problem not so much in moving to expose or repudiate any of the fraudulent activities and teachings. People don't tend to give up their well established ideas so easily -- ie just one saying or pointing out the circumstance. What is often the result is infighting and argumentation.. Like someone in this thread already said, "This controversy about Paul being an Apostle has been around for centuries."-- and what has it accomplished? We are still no closer to ending the controversy or to an established truth. In fact it is much worse now then it may have ever been. The controversy will never end, until people develop the ability to see what is to be seen, and hear what is to be heard.

[kasalt]

So you are not against religion as such. You don't see a problem with someone stating,, "Christianity,, or Islam, or Hinduism or.. represents a valid way of living" per se? In other words, that. in inself, is not the problem, but the fraud perpetuated in this name?

See this thread:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91337

Like someone in this thread already said, "This controversy about Paul being an Apostle has been around for centuries."-- and what has it accomplished? We are still no closer to ending the controversy or to an established truth. In fact it is much worse now then it may have ever been. The controversy will never end, until people develop the ability to see what is to be seen, and hear what is to be heard.

"This controversy about Paul being an Apostle" has been around ever since Paul was first alleged to be an "Apostle". However, it has not been well known or well understood by most people, hence my decision to start this thread. It is a point of view that deserves to be heard and debated.

[dedicate]

Point taken.

But what is it about Paul that one rejects? He's not recommending 200000 animals being sacrificed, or torture, or cruelty, of course. Does he recommend murder and theft?

If he is saying something about women, and this has been a way to force women into "Wife" roles,, then I think we have pretty much stopped that non-sense.. and maybe this is not what Paul was talking about anyway. Maybe he was talking about women as the role of nurturer and man as provider.

Same with issues about slavery always being brought up. We know slavery is wrong. If the Bible reads, "Slavery is good" ,, then we know that either the Bible is wrong on this issue, or we have read it wrong. No question. (Didn't Jesus teach us this when he refused to punish an adulterer?and told the people "Moses gave you this law because you are beasts, not Sons of God!")



Often though, when at work,, it's a lot like slavery (in fact WE ARE SLAVES). I wonder if maybe these Bible passages could offer any insight into these conditions?


Thus, seeing correctly,, is all. What some book or voice tells you is secondary, because if you are messed up in your vision, then you will interpret even good advise adversely.

[freeman craig]

Paul was certainly not a apostle so who actually was he ? many have said that paul is saul in the NT and this fella got chucked out of jesus's church for not being trusted so i doubt very much that he would of been trusted by jesus to preach his words. Jesus spoke in parables that only his close inner circle understood fully as saul wasnt in it stands to reason he didnt understand the true meaning. Ralph ellis has made a fantastic comparasion to paul and josephus the jewish historian of that time when you overlay there lifes they are remarkably similar and would make alot more sense when understanding paul and his agenda behind creating the christian church. So in answer to the question i think St paul is the historical josephus

[kasalt]

Ralph ellis has made a fantastic comparasion to paul and josephus the jewish historian of that time when you overlay there lifes they are remarkably similar and would make alot more sense when understanding paul and his agenda behind creating the christian church. So in answer to the question i think St paul is the historical josephus

I've heard this claim before. Offhand, it seems a bit too much of a stretch for me, but I haven't looked into it enough to give an educated opinion.

What does bother me is the little to nothing that Josephus and other contemporaneous historians had to say about Jesus, Paul, and other major figures of the New Testament.

[freeman craig]

well goes someway to explain why thier isnt historical evidence of these people if he was paul and if the other figures are called different names in his historical works. maybe his historical works are more accurate to the truth and his gospels werent written as historical works but as stories and fables for another purpose other then recording history. I think josephus writes of a few jesus's in his works and he also has a cruxifiction story where he asks the roman guards to take down the prisoners as he knew them and one survives might that of been jesus we might not ever find out but makes alot more sense to me josephus being paul fits like a glove.

[daro2096]

Well the Bible certainly did record at least some of what happened as a result of Paul's `preaching'. He was nearly stoned, beaten and thrown out of Ephesus and other Greek cities in Asia Minor. As Ksalt said - Paul even admits in his letter that some of the churches had rejected him. No wonder. He wasn't preaching the teachings of Jesus so why should they?

I will have to disagree with you on this one. You are misreading what Paul wrote.

[daro2096]

Paul was certainly not a apostle so who actually was he ? many have said that paul is saul in the NT and this fella got chucked out of jesus's church for not being trusted so i doubt very much that he would of been trusted by jesus to preach his words. Jesus spoke in parables that only his close inner circle understood fully as saul wasnt in it stands to reason he didnt understand the true meaning. Ralph ellis has made a fantastic comparasion to paul and josephus the jewish historian of that time when you overlay there lifes they are remarkably similar and would make alot more sense when understanding paul and his agenda behind creating the christian church. So in answer to the question i think St paul is the historical josephus

He was not trusted because before his conversion he was persecuting and killing Christians.

[freeman craig]

He was not trusted because before his conversion he was persecuting and killing Christians.


christians at the time of christ ? there wasnt any they were all jews. jesus and james's church of jerusalem was a jewish sect. what if he was josephus working for the romans the enemy then he wouldnt be trusted at all considering jesus wanted a revolt.

[sofa king]

--



If someone has no interest in religion,, or no belief in it's tenants,, then it stands to reason they will not "get" the scriptures. This is why it is best for them to either forget about it, or at least to hold off on judgement.


it is very possible for one to have a strong belief in God and Christ and not agree with the Bible

[freeman craig]

it is very possible for one to have a strong belief in God and Christ and not agree with the Bible

+1

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Paul claimed to be an apostle in his letter to the Ephesians ....... Paul says only that the believers in Asia abandoned him. For some reason, the Ephesians ceased to regard Paul as a genuine Christian leader.

The book of Revelation, allegedly written by the Apostle John, starts off with the resurrected Jesus instructing the author to send messages to seven churches within Asia ......The first Asian church to be given a message is the church at Ephesus. If Paul had been a genuine apostle, then surely the resurrected Jesus would have reprimanded the Asians for abandoning his genuine apostle. After all, it was the resurrected Jesus who allegedly appeared to Paul (then known as Saul) which led to his supposed conversion and eventual commission as an apostle. ...........I know...that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false."[/I][/B]
[/INDENT]So in essence, this is how the conversation went:

Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Jesus."
The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not."
Resurrected Jesus to the Ephesians: "Well done!"

I would be tempted to declare the case closed based on this evidence alone, but of course, there are a number of apparent objections that can be raised. I will address these objections as they are presented. For now, I would like to know what mainstream Christians and others on this forum have to say about the information that has been presented thus far.

.[/QUOTE]


I would venture to say what you have presented is: 100% Pure Unadulterated Bullshit, much like 'gnosis of christianity' your favourite doctrine.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=40700

Notice how kasalt has no clue asto what Paul is talking about in Galatians.

The Apostle Shaul is extolling the Virtues of Yahweh and Yahshua haMessiah, and kasalt 'thinks' he is presenting 'gnosis of christianity' nonsense.

Epic Fail kasalt.

Since I clued kasalt up about aspects of Paul, which, not surprisingly, he has not Factored into his ruminations. Hmmmmmmmmmm!

Why?

Because kasalt is a Counter-Missionary, his role, as he perceives it, is to put a bushel over the Light of Yahweh, to be a Stumbling Block to seekers, to discourage honest dialogue and communication.

He endorses the Message of the Serpent.

Figure it out.

Here is an important Frame of Reference, which I shared with kaslt recently, why has he ignored this?

In the case of Paul, the "corporate" nature of his letters extends to his mission as well. So Gamble, BREC:99:
"It was Paul's custom to name others together with himself as cosenders of his letters. This was probably not a formality but a reflection of the involvement of his associates in the conception, if not in the composition, of many of the letters. The evidence strongly suggests that Paul's missionary enterprise had a corporate structure and a school dimension..."This stream of data strongly suggests that "the same apostolic circles were involved in the formation and/or transmission of both gospel and epistolary traditions" (E. Earle Ellis, in GAG:52). The fact that the NT literature was a group-effort or collaborative in nature would have acted as a significant barrier to the individual writers "smuggling in" pagan and/or foreign images of Jesus.
Indications of close interactions/associations among the authors:

It is quite easy to demonstrate that the various writers/sources of NT documents were in constant communication and collaborative work. Some of the data are as follows:

The letters of James, I Peter, and the Pauline letters were written by apostles who--according to Paul and his sometime companion Luke--worked together. The data is extensive: Gal 1.18; 2.1, 9; I cor 3.22-4.1; 9.5; 11.16, 23ff; 14.33ff; 15.3-7; Rom 15.25; Acts 11.29f; 12.25; 15.6-35; 21.17f; cf. 2 Pet 3.15f; Jude 17f with I Tim 4.1).
The letters and the Book of Acts connect their authors with the synoptic authors:
Peter and Paul with Mark (Col 4.10f;2 Tim 4.11; Phlm 24; I Pet 5.13; Acts 12.12-25; 13.5, 13; 15.37ff).
Paul and James with Luke (Paul: Col 4.14; 2 Tim 4.11; Phlm 24; Acts 16.10-17; 20.5-21.17; 27.1-28.16 ["we"]; James: Acts 21.17f ["we"]).
Acts puts James and Matthew together in Jerusalem (Acts 1.13f with 12.12-17, 25)



The epistles reveal that Paul and Peter and James know a number of synoptic traditions [GAG:44]
Paul: I Cor 7.10; 9.14 (I tim 5.18); I Cor 11.23; 15.3; cf. Col2.8; see GP:II:345-375 for a substantial list of Pauline overlaps with the Synoptic Apocalypse.
Peter: I Pet 1.10ff (Luke 10.24=Matt 13.17); 2.7 (Mark 12:10); 2.12 (Matt 5.16); 4.13f (Matt 5.11f=Luke 6.22f).
James shows special affinities to Matthew: 1:5,6, 22f; 2:5, 13; 4.10; 5.12.
Peter was apparently the source of much information for Paul--Gal 1.18.
The NT writers were in constant communication and collaboration with each other, and demonstrate this in their writings. It would have been difficult if not impossible for one of this group to have held to foreign, pagan notions without it becoming widely known. We even know of disagreements within the early church, and that they are surfaced quite visibly(!)--such as Peter vs. Paul in Galatians and the circumcision issue in Acts 14-15. All the indications along these lines are well within Jewish-Christian thought, and foreign notions do not start to show up until after the NT era at the earliest.

Indications of relatively close apostolic oversight of the spread of the gospel content:
The early church had a center (Jerusalem) and leaders (apostles).
When the church expanded into Samaria, there was interaction with the leaders of the founding church (Acts 8.14): "When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them".
When the church expanded into Antioch, we see the same pattern occur (Act 11:22): "News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch."
When the issue of circumcision came up, the church in Antioch appointed Paul and Barnabas "to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question" (Acts 15.2)
The first church council was held at Jerusalem (Act 15:23-29)
The reference in Acts 15:24--"We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you..."--is a STRONG indication of a 'sense of control'!
...as is 16.6: "As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey. .
Paul accepted the importance of the Jerusalem center (Gal 2.1-2): "Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain."
Davids points out how significant this was [GP:I:87f]:
"Confirmation of the picture in Acts comes from the fact that even Paul felt the power and authority of the Jerusalem church and the apostles. While Paul insists that his legitimacy as an apostle comes directly from Christ, he still reports that he found it necessary to go to Jerusalem at least twice and on one occasion to seek formal approval of his gospel from the apostles (Gal. 2.1-10). This would be most astounding if Paul did not feel that the apostles had at least some type of authority over the content of the tradition. Thus although Paul refuses to become dependent upon Jerusalem, he has the highest respect for the role of the community as a stronghold of pure doctrine and tradition".
At Jrs. Paul was welcomed and sent to the Gentiles (Gal 2.9f): "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."
Paul (a native of Tarsus!) returned to Jerusalem after EACH missionary journey.
Even Peter is subject to the apostles as a group (Acts 8.4).
The leading apostles and evangelists had traveling ministries, bringing them into contact with churches and believers everywhere.
The early churches did NOT live in a vacuum. They corresponded with each other (cf. I Clement, a letter from Rome to Corinth, a.d. 95, see ATNT:48-49) and exchanged NT documents (cf. Col. 4.16).
Bauckham summarizes the authority succinctly :
[B]"The Jerusalem council presupposes the authority of Jerusalem to decide the issue of Gentile Christians' obedience to the Law (Acts 15). Its decision binds not only Antioch and its daughter churches (15.22-31) but also the churches founded by Paul and Barnabas (16.4). When James recalls the decision in 21.25, the effect is to imply that Paul's Gentile mission is still subject to it."
This controlling group of apostles and elders would have been a serious 'check and balance' against any foreign notions, held by any individual or minority.

[B]The "Net" of this is clear: there were CONSIDERABLE 'checks and balances' in place during this early period, which would have prohibited the introduction of individual foreign elements into the content of the NT. The NT literature was generally a group-product, the authors were in frequent communication/co-work with each other, and the original apostolic community oversaw the development and transmission of the gospel content. Even novel elements that could be produced by the pneumatic and prophetic ministries of the Spirit were to be 'judged' by the core content and authoritative followers of Jesus (cf. I Cor 14.29; I Thess 5.19-21; I John 4.1-3).

See kasalt? you should have understood the concepts of: Checks & Balances and Corporate Solidarity and Univocity

If the entire Council of Jerusalem considered the Apostle Shaul a worthy Emissary of Yahweh and Yahshua, then so do I.

As for the Ephesians: The False Apostles referenced to are the Nicolaitians and others, notably those purporting 'gnosis of christianity'.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/paul.html

Yo!!!!

'gnosis boy'

READ THIS and get back 2 me.


http://www.torahofmessiah.com/warning.htm

http://www.torahofmessiah.com/countermiss_art.html

http://www.torahofmessiah.com/pauldefense1.htm


URGENT warning, definition, and rebuke of the rapid growth of Anti-Paulism among alleged "Messianics"

BEWARE true followers of Messiah! Satan is working. There is an emerging mad rush by some tragically misguided or outright counterfeit "Messianics" to embrace anti-Paul ideologies.

Anti-Paulism is a subset of counter-missionary (anti-missionary) goals, which makes it a very important and often used element in the wicked counter-missionary agenda. The goal of counter-missionaries is to attack in as many conceivable ways as possible the New Testament and the message presented therein, which of course includes the role, position, authority, and accomplishments of Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus the Christ). Specifically, anti-Paul ideology rejects Paul's epistles, the book of Acts and parts of 2 Peter (since they support Paul), and other New Testament writings. Sometimes instead of "rejecting" Paul anti-Paulists simply strongly "doubt" Paul's legitimacy as a preacher of truth or only "partially" accept Paul's writings. Regardless of whether it is rejection or doubting of Paul the end result is that the New Testament is reduced to a smoldering ruin, which of course is sometimes the ultimate objective of anti-Paulists

Keep in mind Christians, kasalt claims to be a 'gnostic christian'. a morally bankrupt and comically idiotic theology. Entirely unsupported by Scripture, but they will tell you what the Scripture 'really means'

:rolleyes: X Infinity.

kasalt, bonus question: Why does Shaul repeatedly endorse and promote the Faith of Abraham?

http://www.tntrevealed.org/radioshow.cfm?c=22&l=29

Doctrinaly, the Apostle Shaul presented a Transcendental Torah Consciousness, much like the Apostle John.

Gotta give Yahweh and Yahshua credit, they took Shaul, the Number One Rabbinical Student who was groomed to be Israels Chief Rabbi, and gave him a fresh perspective and put him on Their Team.

:)


kind regards

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

The problem with most of you Skeptics are your varying ignorances:

Ignorance of Cultural Contexts, Ignorance of Contextual Contexts, Ignorance of Linguistic Contexts, Ignorance of Historical Contexts.

This Essay shall shed light upon your collective ignorances.

Apostles Before and During Paul’s Time
Rudolf Schnackenberg
English translation by Manfred Kwiran and W. Ward Gasque

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ahg/apostles_schnackenburg.pdf

It makes no sense to play the “charismatic” and “institutional” concepts of an apostle one
against the other. Rather, the concept of an apostle, at the beginning, was not carefully
defined. During this period Paul had to be active as an apostle and needed to succeed against
those who contested
[p.303]
his apostleship. He faced all the requirements, the ones which came from the “apostles before
him” in Jerusalem, as well as those which were presented by “apostles during his time,” and
in this he clarified his own understanding of his ministry as an apostle. In a unique way he
connects the consciousness of apostolic authority (cf. 1 Thess. 2:7; 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10) and the
charismatic preaching in which Christ makes himself known. By making this identification
Paul made a major contribution to the clarification of the position of an apostle within the
early church. Because he wished to become “all things to all men” (1 Cor. 9:22) and only
desired to be a servant of Christ (2 Cor. 4:5) and “not to run in vain” (Gal. 2:2), he also helped
to bridge the unexplained and diverging interpretations in the early church — as a true apostle
of Jesus Christ and a promoter of unity and ecumenical co-operation.



Kind Regards

[kasalt]

Paul, the greatest apostle!"I magnify my office." ... "In nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles." (Romans 11.13; 2 Corinthians 12.11)Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't stop at only claiming to be an apostle. He also did what he could to communicate to his followers that he topped them all. He even had the nerve to belittle the very apostles that [Jesus] had called and trained for three and a half years to be his witnesses! Among this braggadocio's self-flattering quotes are the following. "For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ..."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia." 2 Corinthians 11:5,10
Sometimes, as though he knew he should be ashamed of challenging the stature of [Jesus'] Twelve, he would preface his boast with a statement of unworthiness. No doubt he hoped people would embrace him as the greatest of apostles because he was so humble. "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Corinthians 15:9,10
Aside from the fact that it was a lie to suggest the ministry had been split up between Jews and Gentiles ...as though he had exclusive rights to the Gentiles and the 12 were to stay with the Jews..., Paul even had the gall to condescend specifically on Peter, James, and John when he belittled them to the Galatians. "But from those who seemed to be something - whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:6,7,9
This is nothing but an arrogant lie. A couple verses later, Paul takes another cheap-shot at Peter. With Peter nowhere around to defend himself, Paul brags to the Galatians how he had determined Peter was a hypocrite, and how he had put him down before the entire church of Antioch. "But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews played the hypocrite with him so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "if you being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Galatians 2:11-14
Earlier, in Galatians 1:8,9, Paul commanded his followers to consider "accursed" anyone who preaches a different gospel than his. There is little doubt that Paul wanted the Galatians to think this way toward Peter, if not James, and John as well. It is obvious to anyone reading the book of Galatians that Paul was demanding the Galatian church follow no one but him, not even the original apostles back in Jerusalem.


Aside from Paul's incredible arrogance, I also need to point out that Paul himself was the ultimate hypocrite for condemning Peter for accommodating Gentiles when he was around Gentiles and acting like a Jew around Jews. Here is what he claimed to do, and commanded the Corinthians to do as well. "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without the law as without law... that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1Corinthians 9:19-22
"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 1Corinthians 10:31-33
When Paul says, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" we should do as he says... because in no way did he imitate [Jesus]! Can anyone imagine [Jesus] playing chameleon and saying anything like "I have become all things to all men" or "I please all men in all things"?
So here we have Paul, claiming to be greater than any other apostle, belittling Peter, James, and John by saying they only "seemed" to be pillars of the church, and that they "added nothing" to him. Then he brags about how he told off Peter... calling him a hypocrite, and he subtly curses the apostles by telling the Galatians to consider accursed anyone who differs with him. All this, while in fact, he was being the greatest hypocrite of all! The superstitious belief that Paul's words are infallible is so thick that people can't see the forest for all the trees that are in the way! If anyone else had even begun to do and say the things that Paul did, we would have recognized their incredible conceit and rejected them a long time ago. Here is something relevant that Solomon said: "Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips." Proverbs 27:2
Source: http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

[dedicate]

Paul, who took part in murder,, may not have been correct about everything. Why is it that people accept living in Grace,, but don't extend the benefit to Paul>? Maybe he was wrong about a few things. He's only human after all. And all the other Apostles were probably wrong about a few things.

All those followers were educated and raised in a Jewish community with Jewish laws and customs. When this is so, then by the time you are 30 years old or so, it becomes difficult to see differently.

As I remember there was quite a riff over whether or not Paul should be teaching to the Gentiles. This means the other Apostles were incorrect about Paul teaching to them,, and not forcing on them Jewish traditions. So, Paul was an Apostle in this sense.-- called by Jesus to teach the Good News.

[kasalt]

Here's a good comprehensive video which surveys the New Testament passages on the subject:

Was Paul an Apostle or a False Prophet?
Was Paul an Apostle or a False Prophet? (Audio version) - YouTube

[jesusistruth]

One particular annoying thing I find about Paul is that he allows to eat meat sacrificed unto idols unless you are in the prescence of someone who can get offended by it, even though the Holy Spirit in Acts and Jesus in Revelation forbids it.

But it would ruin the integrity of the Bible. Perhaps petty things for such upheaval. Other than the sacrified meat and the presumed Ephesus issue, he doesn't really contradict the Bible.

[armoured_amazon]

Interesting topic. It'll take a while to get through!

[kasalt]

One particular annoying thing I find about Paul is that he allows to eat meat sacrificed unto idols unless you are in the prescence of someone who can get offended by it, even though the Holy Spirit in Acts and Jesus in Revelation forbids it.

Good point.

In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul states:
"As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols...neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." (I Corinthians 8:4a, 8b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+8&version=KJV))
So Paul essentially states that Christians are free to eat meat sacrificed to idols so long as their faith is strong enough for them to allow it (I Corinthians 8:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+8&version=KJV)).

However, Paul's teaching is in direct contrast to the unequivocal statement issued against eating meat sacrificed to idols by the original Apostles of Jesus as recorded in Acts 15:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15:29&version=KJV):
"Abstain from meats offered to idols".
And Revelation 2:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2:14&version=KJV) quotes post-resurrection Jesus as saying:
"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that...eat things sacrificed unto idols."
Paul apparently knew better than Jesus' original Apostles on the subject, and if Revelation 2:14 is to be believed, Paul apparently knew better than Jesus himself!

[thehappycoder]

I am not Christian but I'll tell you a point of view that I share. Paul was Israeli agent that helped to create a new religion that we call 'Christianity'. But I am not going to argue with whoever thinks I am wrong.

Jesus himself said that he came only to save Jews. For more info about the source read http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058584458

[michael christopher]

I am not Christian but I'll tell you a point of view that I share. Paul was Israeli agent that helped to create a new religion that we call 'Christianity'. But I am not going to argue with whoever thinks I am wrong.

That seems far more believable to me than the idea that Paul was a good human being. Just based on what he wrote.

[freeman craig]

I am not Christian but I'll tell you a point of view that I share. Paul was Israeli agent that helped to create a new religion that we call 'Christianity'. But I am not going to argue with whoever thinks I am wrong.

Jesus himself said that he came only to save Jews. For more info about the source read http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058584458

jewish roman agent josephus and im sticking with it lol :D

[clachan]

I am not Christian but I'll tell you a point of view that I share. Paul was Israeli agent that helped to create a new religion that we call 'Christianity'. But I am not going to argue with whoever thinks I am wrong.

Jesus himself said that he came only to save Jews. For more info about the source read http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1058584458

O pleeeeeeeeese argue,it makes life so much more vibrant dont you think ?

[thehappycoder]

I think that you don't know what LIFE is for if you think that. I am here not for the entertainment and I don't have much spare time to waste on arguing.

[drakul]

Paul, the greatest apostle!"I magnify my office." ... "In nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles." (Romans 11.13; 2 Corinthians 12.11)Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't stop at only claiming to be an apostle. He also did what he could to communicate to his followers that he topped them all. He even had the nerve to belittle the very apostles that [Jesus] had called and trained for three and a half years to be his witnesses! Among this braggadocio's self-flattering quotes are the following. "For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ..."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia." 2 Corinthians 11:5,10
Sometimes, as though he knew he should be ashamed of challenging the stature of [Jesus'] Twelve, he would preface his boast with a statement of unworthiness. No doubt he hoped people would embrace him as the greatest of apostles because he was so humble. "For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all...". 1Corinthians 15:9,10
Aside from the fact that it was a lie to suggest the ministry had been split up between Jews and Gentiles ...as though he had exclusive rights to the Gentiles and the 12 were to stay with the Jews..., Paul even had the gall to condescend specifically on Peter, James, and John when he belittled them to the Galatians. "But from those who seemed to be something - whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." Galatians 2:6,7,9
This is nothing but an arrogant lie. A couple verses later, Paul takes another cheap-shot at Peter. With Peter nowhere around to defend himself, Paul brags to the Galatians how he had determined Peter was a hypocrite, and how he had put him down before the entire church of Antioch. "But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews played the hypocrite with him so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "if you being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Galatians 2:11-14
Earlier, in Galatians 1:8,9, Paul commanded his followers to consider "accursed" anyone who preaches a different gospel than his. There is little doubt that Paul wanted the Galatians to think this way toward Peter, if not James, and John as well. It is obvious to anyone reading the book of Galatians that Paul was demanding the Galatian church follow no one but him, not even the original apostles back in Jerusalem.


Aside from Paul's incredible arrogance, I also need to point out that Paul himself was the ultimate hypocrite for condemning Peter for accommodating Gentiles when he was around Gentiles and acting like a Jew around Jews. Here is what he claimed to do, and commanded the Corinthians to do as well. "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without the law as without law... that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1Corinthians 9:19-22
"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 1Corinthians 10:31-33
When Paul says, "Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ" we should do as he says... because in no way did he imitate [Jesus]! Can anyone imagine [Jesus] playing chameleon and saying anything like "I have become all things to all men" or "I please all men in all things"?
So here we have Paul, claiming to be greater than any other apostle, belittling Peter, James, and John by saying they only "seemed" to be pillars of the church, and that they "added nothing" to him. Then he brags about how he told off Peter... calling him a hypocrite, and he subtly curses the apostles by telling the Galatians to consider accursed anyone who differs with him. All this, while in fact, he was being the greatest hypocrite of all! The superstitious belief that Paul's words are infallible is so thick that people can't see the forest for all the trees that are in the way! If anyone else had even begun to do and say the things that Paul did, we would have recognized their incredible conceit and rejected them a long time ago. Here is something relevant that Solomon said: "Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips." Proverbs 27:2
Source: http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

Thanks for posting this. It's unbelieveable that Saul/Paul was able to get away with such blatant bravado and yet he is seen as a Jesus like figure. He must have had very high backing from somewhere to have basically taken control of the Christian church the way he was allowed to.

[jesusistruth]

Guys there is no Christianity without Paul! Any Christian denying Paul is essentially speaking against himself and his holy book.

[jesusistruth]

Ok I just noticed something:

You already know that all who are in Asia turned away and forsook me, Phygelus and Hermogenes among them.

May the Lord grant [His] mercy to the family of Onesiphorus, for he often showed me kindness and ministered to my needs [comforting and reviving and bracing me like fresh air]! He was not ashamed of my chains and imprisonment [for Christ's sake].

No, rather when he reached Rome, he searched diligently and eagerly for me and found me.

WE'RE TAKING THIS ALL OUT OF CONTEXT!

Paul is sitting in prison in Rome and all the people from Asia stopped visiting him (and out of shame it seems)! That's the story. They didn't expel him as Rev 2:2 would suppose.

So this argument falls.

[sofa king]

Guys there is no Christianity without Paul! Any Christian denying Paul is essentially speaking against himself and his holy book.

what?

when did Paul become the son of God?

or are you committing idolitry?

[daro2096]

Ok I just noticed something:



WE'RE TAKING THIS ALL OUT OF CONTEXT!

Paul is sitting in prison in Rome and all the people from Asia stopped visiting him (and out of shame it seems)! That's the story. They didn't expel him as Rev 2:2 would suppose.

So this argument falls.

Amen. I would have pointed this out too but it seems they don't want answers.

[kasalt]

Guys there is no Christianity without Paul! Any Christian denying Paul is essentially speaking against himself and his holy book.

ROFL, I can't even believe you said that, but it speaks volumes. I would have thought there would be no Christianity without Jesus, but I guess Paul is what it's all about!

Well, there's no doubt that Paul took Christianity into a very different direction than it would have gone if he had never come along, that much is for certain. More on that later, I'm sure...

Ok I just noticed something:



WE'RE TAKING THIS ALL OUT OF CONTEXT!

Paul is sitting in prison in Rome and all the people from Asia stopped visiting him (and out of shame it seems)! That's the story. They didn't expel him as Rev 2:2 would suppose.

So this argument falls.

I think you may actually have a point here. I've been reviewing that passage myself, and the evidence for the assumption that all of the Christians of Asia turned away from Paul due to a belief that he was a false apostle may be a bit weak. I'll look into this further. I trust other posters will as well.

Even if this particular aspect of the case doesn't hold up, there is still a lot of other evidence that has been presented to support the conclusion that there was something really off about Paul, and Paul's supporters on this thread haven't even attempted to address them.

Amen. I would have pointed this out too but it seems they don't want answers.

If you have something to offer to the dialogue then please do so. We're all here to learn.

[jesusistruth]

what?

when did Paul become the son of God?

or are you committing idolitry?

You would expect that God could atleast compile a faithful book considering the importance of the Word. Furthermore to deny Paul is to put the holy spirit into question. Not to mention that there's hardly any Christian in history that did not approve Paul. If Pauls teachings are false, and the holy spirit is supposed to lead you to all truth, and you endorse Paul, then you don't have the holy spirit and you're not really saved.

[kasalt]

there's hardly any Christian in history that did not approve Paul.

You obviously know very little about early Christian history. Check out these articles:

Ebionites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_%28sect%29

the holy spirit is supposed to lead you to all truth

Then why hasn't he?

[jesusistruth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_%28sect%29

"Paul of Tarsus was apprehended and accused by the attorney of the Jerusalem High Priest Ananias and Pharisaic Jews of being "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes"."

And in that same article,

"but unlike the Ebionites, they accepted the virgin birth of Jesus."

proving that the ebonites were not even Christians.


Then why hasn't he?

For Christianity to be true I have to assume that he has and that Pauls teachings are valid.

Regarding the Law, jesus stated:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-20&version=KJV

Paul basically underlines that the law is no means for salvation (if that was the issue with the Nazarenes)

[kasalt]

"but unlike the Ebionites, they accepted the virgin birth of Jesus."

proving that the ebonites were not even Christians.

The gospels of Mark and John make no mention whatsoever of Jesus' virgin birth. Paul also makes no mention of the virgin birth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Epistles_of_Paul

For early Christians who knew only of Mark's or John's gospel (and/or the writings of Paul), how do you expect them to believe in something they may never have even heard of? The earliest record of there being a consensus on four gospels does not appear in the writings of early Christians until the middle of the second century AD. Even then, some early Christians held to only one gospel.

For Christianity to be true I have to assume that he has and that Pauls teachings are valid.

It would seem to me that if you had been "led into all truth", you would know it. It would't be a vague "assumption" on your part.

Why don't you just be honest and admit that you haven't been led into all truth--that there is a lot you don't know?

[jesusistruth]

The gospels of Mark and John make no mention whatsoever of Jesus' virgin birth. Paul also makes no mention of the virgin birth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Epistles_of_Paul

For early Christians who knew only of Mark's or John's gospel (and/or the writings of Paul), how do you expect them to believe in something they may never have even heard of? The earliest record of there being a consensus on four gospels does not appear in the writings of early Christians until the middle of the second century AD. Even then, some early Christians held to only one gospel.


To deny the virgin birth is to deny the divinity of Jesus which is already to deny Jesus...

But it seems:

"According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew."

So neither did they believe in Christ or accept Paul...


Why don't you just be honest and admit that you haven't been led into all truth--that there is a lot you don't know?

Have I really stated otherwise? I only speak what I read in the Bible and what other Preachers/Prophets say, dividing the truth best I can.

[phildee3]

To deny the virgin birth is to deny the divinity of Jesus



"Not to accept" does not equal "to deny."



I only speak what I read in the Bible and what other Preachers/Prophets say,



It says in the Bible that there is alot more to Jesus than what is written in the Bible -
so you have a very limited and narrow view.

[drael]

To deny the virgin birth is to deny the divinity of Jesus which is already to deny Jesus...

Something can most certainly be divine without a norse or greek style virgin birth. Virgin birth could be caused by a genetic defect or variation, its not really any kind of real miracle, like say, walking on water.

Might I also add, that if you work from the _assumption_ the bible is the infallible word of god (despite disagreement on jesus's words and teachings between disciples - you can see the same words of jesus put differently by different people, very easily. Despite serious translation issues, that are clear in examining the original words. Despite the historical editting of the bible by the romans. Despite the discovery of testimonies never included in the bible. ETc Etc etc)

Anyway, if you work from this _assumption_ the the word is perfect, then even in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary, that can be proven, shown and demonstrated, you will maintain your assumption.

But that assumption itself, does not make it true. Thats like saying, its true, so therefor its true.

Thats some seriously brainwashed thinking.

What if, God is someone you can know yourself? What if, the holy spirit is something you can commune with yourself?

The bible says people spoke to God. The bible says people were filled with the holy spirit. If these two things are true, you have no need for preists, churches, pastors or even the bible. Just seek God, and the holy spirit, and they will tell you what is true.

[clachan]

I think that you don't know what LIFE is for if you think that. I am here not for the entertainment and I don't have much spare time to waste on arguing.

So,you have an opinion and thats that.
OK,no point in agument then.

[tannah]

You would expect that God could atleast compile a faithful book considering the importance of the Word.

There's only one incorruptible "book" that God reads from, and it isn't a physical book. Physical books are written by us in our attempt to come to understand God. To sit on the contents of a physical book and use it to ignore spirit in the moment IS blindness.

Honestly God is too awake to be taken in by labels, slogans, ISMS and ISTS.
Take away all these blind alleys and everyone stands alone with a non-physical book emanating from their heart. Once a person learns to read this book, he will also know how to discern spirits. Sadly , using physical books seems to not lead to real discernment but mostly to judgment and inevitably to spiritual blindness.

[clachan]

You would expect that God could atleast compile a faithful book considering the importance of the Word. Furthermore to deny Paul is to put the holy spirit into question. Not to mention that there's hardly any Christian in history that did not approve Paul. If Pauls teachings are false, and the holy spirit is supposed to lead you to all truth, and you endorse Paul, then you don't have the holy spirit and you're not really saved.

I dont accept your judgements on who has or does not have the holy spirit,how do i know you have ?
You only assume Paul had a vision of Christ,you say you know because he told you.
Jesus told us to be careful that you are not decieved,thats good advice.
To question Paul is not to deny Christ,to question Paul is to seek the truth and God will not punish anyone for that.
Am i to ignore my intuitions which led me to Christ in the first place ?

[drakul]

I dont accept your judgements on who has or does not have the holy spirit,how do i know you have ?
You only assume Paul had a vision of Christ,you say you know because he told you.
Jesus told us to be careful that you are not decieved,thats good advice.
To question Paul is not to deny Christ,to question Paul is to seek the truth and God will not punish anyone for that.
Am i to ignore my intuitions which led me to Christ in the first place ?

I agree. Paul did not add one thing to the teachings of Jesus. There is nothing in any of Paul's writings that I find essential to Christianity. All I need to find Christ is in the Gospels. The rest is just 2000 yrs of CHURCH DOGMA.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Ok I just noticed something:



WE'RE TAKING THIS ALL OUT OF CONTEXT!

Paul is sitting in prison in Rome and all the people from Asia stopped visiting him (and out of shame it seems)! That's the story. They didn't expel him as Rev 2:2 would suppose.

So this argument falls.

Amen. I would have pointed this out too but it seems they don't want answers.

Exactly, extracting a Verse, or a segement of a Verse, out of relevant contexts, this is a 'christian gnostic' Modus Operendi, notice how kasalt entirely ignored my Post.

'gnosis of christianity' is a Retrogressive Theology which at it's root, is a path back to the Babylonian Mystery School, by way of Alexandria. A Gutter/Sewer level of spirituality without any Grounding or Foundation, morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest, yet the gnostic xtians persist in their folly to obstruct Yahwehs Message.

kasalt does not like Yahweh, the Self-Existant Creator Being whose Word and Will is revealed by the Jews as His Chosen People to bring forth His Truth, from the first verse of Bereshith/Genesis unto the last Verse of the Revelation of Yahweh, this of course includes the writings of the Apostle Shaul/Paul.

If there is any question of an Emissaries validity as an Apostle, it will be found in their writings. The Apostle Shaul/Paul is Brilliant and exhibits the highest degree of integrity bringing forth and representing Yahwehs Message, as brought forth by Yahshua haMessiah. This is why the Entirety of the Book of Yahweh/Bible is 'Interlocked'. The Tanach/OT supports and validates the writings of the Nazarenes and the writings/sayings of Yahshua haMessia/Jesus Christ support and validates the Tanach/OT.

Checks & Balances

Corporate Solidarity

Univocity

As Yahshua haMessiah declared: "Scripture cannot be broken".


"OUR LORD’S VIEW OF THE OLD TESTAMENT"


By The Rev. J.W. Wenham, M.A., B.D.
Vice-Principal of Tyndale Hall, Bristol

http://www.the-highway.com/Scripture_Wenham.html


This Essay thoroughy refutes kasalts premise:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ahg/apostles_schnackenburg.pdf

kasalt ignored this, but I am sure those seeking Truth have read it. :)

Apostles Before and During Paul’s Time
Rudolf Schnackenberg
English translation by Manfred Kwiran and W. Ward Gasque


.........It makes no sense to play the “charismatic” and “institutional” concepts of an apostle one
against the other. Rather, the concept of an apostle, at the beginning, was not carefully
defined. During this period Paul had to be active as an apostle and needed to succeed against
those who contested
[p.303]
his apostleship. He faced all the requirements, the ones which came from the “apostles before
him” in Jerusalem, as well as those which were presented by “apostles during his time,” and
in this he clarified his own understanding of his ministry as an apostle. In a unique way he
connects the consciousness of apostolic authority (cf. 1 Thess. 2:7; 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10) and the
charismatic preaching in which Christ makes himself known. By making this identification
Paul made a major contribution to the clarification of the position of an apostle within the
early church. Because he wished to become “all things to all men” (1 Cor. 9:22) and only
desired to be a servant of Christ (2 Cor. 4:5) and “not to run in vain” (Gal. 2:2), he also helped
to bridge the unexplained and diverging interpretations in the early church — as a true apostle
of Jesus Christ and a promoter of unity and ecumenical co-operation.

Understanding the 'character & persona' of Shaul is helpful.

:)

Shaul was born into a well off Family, educated and with resources. At the age of three he was shipped off, from Tarsus, To Yerushalayim to study at the School of Hillel, were he would ultimately study under Gamaliel, a renowned scholar. Alledgely Shaul was what we would now consider a Type A personality. A real go-getter, #1 Student at the Yeshiva being groomed to be the Chief Rabbi of Judea, in his spare time he would persecute the Minim/Heretics, anyone they felt was abrogating the authority Rabbinical Judaism.

The Nazarenes; Yahshuas' group,(Christians came later) were only one of the sects Shaul persecuted.

Now what happened on the Damascus Road can be likened to Babe Ruth leaving the Boston Red Sox and joining the New York Yankees.

He had enormous potential, not yet realised with the Rabbinic Judaism, this potential manifested itself as a Nazarene.

As Peter said: Shaul speaks things which are difficult to understand to the unlearned and they will twist and distort his words to fit their own belief.

This is what the 'xtian gnostics' do; twist and distort.

Check the Gnosticism Thread, it is historically proven by kasalts own posts he never knew what Shaul was talking about. A few weeks ago kasalt vainly attempted to 'make a case' that Shaul was a 'gnostic'.

Epic Fail.

kasalt also refused to recognise an important Frame of Reference, the Council of Jerusalem, which supported Shaul in his mission, because his message AND actions exhibited a very high level of integrity to Yahwehs and Yahshuas Messages and Teachings.

Again, kasalt is a deceiver and a stumbling block to seekers and sojourners.

Truth, as yet, is a foreign concept to kasalt.

The Truth is in Shauls message, which is 100% 'Spot On'.

Hallelu Yahweh

Kind Regards

[jesusistruth]

I dont accept your judgements on who has or does not have the holy spirit,how do i know you have ?
You only assume Paul had a vision of Christ,you say you know because he told you.
Jesus told us to be careful that you are not decieved,thats good advice.
To question Paul is not to deny Christ,to question Paul is to seek the truth and God will not punish anyone for that.
Am i to ignore my intuitions which led me to Christ in the first place ?

That's not a judgement, it's a reasoning. If the holy spirit is supposed to lead one to truth, and one endorses the teachings of Paul, which almost every Christian has done, which you calim to be false teaching, then we are really screwed, because it would no one has ever possed the spirit truth.

But why don't I ask you, and every other supposed born again christian here, can I find salvation in the Buddha?


What if, God is someone you can know yourself? What if, the holy spirit is something you can commune with yourself?

That's exactly the point, to know God, otherwise you cannot expect salvation. And everyone who knows God will testify the bible is the word of God.

[clachan]

That's not a judgement, it's a reasoning. If the holy spirit is supposed to lead one to truth, and one endorses the teachings of Paul, which almost every Christian has done, which you calim to be false teaching, then we are really screwed, because it would no one has ever possed the spirit truth.

But why don't I ask you, and every other supposed born again christian here, can I find salvation in the Buddha?




That's exactly the point, to know God, otherwise you cannot expect salvation. And everyone who knows God will testify the bible is the word of God.

OK.
Its quite clear and obvious that the Church has been hijacked.
I never said Paul was a fraud,what Iam saying is that there are things about him that lead one to think he may be.
Consider this....when Christ was dying on the cross where were the desiples ?
The only people with him were woman,the others were all too busy hiding.
Jesus held woman in high regard,yet they were vertually banished when Paul turned up and said.."right you lot,Ive had a vision of Jesus so listen up cos Im the gaffa now"

Say who ?...a pharisee !

Ian not a born again Christian,I have no label,other than a human being.

[tannah]

But why don't I ask you, and every other supposed born again christian here, can I find salvation in the Buddha?





Once you understand what you'd want to be saved from, yes, the Buddha has much enlightenment to give on the subject. Just because you don't listen to a spiritual master like Buddha doesn't mean others don't. You need to weigh up what is said, not who said it or where it was said.

But if you choose to consider that everyone not supporting the bible is a terrorist against God, then I expect you will be rather shallow in terms of spiritual capacity. Does the idea of spiritual capacity still make you squirm? We're so useless that we'd just best believe in Jesus and not venture into any silly ideas like spiritual capacity? After all, it takes a degree of shallowness to not recognize a Buddha's spiritual lessons.

What is spiritual poverty then? Do you think Buddhism inspires many more Spiritual people than the Christianity of the West?

[kasalt]

If the holy spirit is supposed to lead one to truth, and one endorses the teachings of Paul, which almost every Christian has done, which you calim to be false teaching, then we are really screwed, because it would mean no one has ever possed the spirit truth.

How do you reconcile the point that you brought up about Paul saying it is permissible for Christians to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols (I Corinthians 8:4, 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+8&version=KJV)), when Acts 15:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15:29&version=KJV) and Revelation 2:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2:14&version=KJV) expressly forbids it?

By the way, I should have added that chapter 2 of Revelation forbids eating meat sacrificed to idols on two occasions, rather than one. Here is the second quote:"And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write...I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to...eat things sacrificed unto idols."
Back in those days, a pagan temple served not only as a place of animal sacrifice but also as a sort of meat-market, and even as a restaurant were people could go in, sit down, and eat a meal. Paul actually wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:10 that it was permissible for Christians to "sit at meat in the idol's temple", so long as their faith and the faith of those around them was "strong enough" to permit them to do it. But in permitting what the Apostles expressly forbade, does this mean that Paul was suggesting that the faith of the Apostles of Jesus was weaker than his because they strictly forbade it? The book of Revelation was allegedly written by the Apostle John (according to Church tradition), so does this mean that John's faith was weaker than Paul's as well? But John was allegedly quoting Jesus when he wrote about the prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols, so does this mean Jesus' faith was also weaker than Paul's faith? Did Paul know better than Jesus, that he could permit under certain circumstances what Jesus and his original Apostles strictly forbade?

[rodin]

Why aren't you more concerned with the fact that the Bible, which is supposed to be the infallible word of God, directly contradicts itself hundreds if not thousands of times?

Oh we are

Here is a long and thought provoking thread examining this issue

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=218253

Drakul put me on to it

[jesusistruth]

How do you reconcile the point that you brought up about Paul saying it is permissible for Christians to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols (I Corinthians 8:4, 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+8&version=KJV)), when Acts 15:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15:29&version=KJV) and Revelation 2:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2:14&version=KJV) expressly forbids it?


I don't reconcile it. The whole Jesus-phenomena has got to be explained though.

OK.
Its quite clear and obvious that the Church has been hijacked.
I never said Paul was a fraud,what Iam saying is that there are things about him that lead one to think he may be.
Consider this....when Christ was dying on the cross where were the desiples ?
The only people with him were woman,the others were all too busy hiding.
Jesus held woman in high regard,yet they were vertually banished when Paul turned up and said.."right you lot,Ive had a vision of Jesus so listen up cos Im the gaffa now"

Say who ?...a pharisee !


John was with them atleast,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19:25-27&version=KJV

The Christian God is a Living God. He is a god that wants to know us personally and gives guidence. He gives us power to heal and cast out demons. Let alone he created everything in existence. It would be real mockery if he couldn't even compile a faithful testimony of himself.

Once you understand what you'd want to be saved from, yes, the Buddha has much enlightenment to give on the subject.

There is no Gospel, either the official ones or the apochryphal, that speaks about meditation. The only salvation Jesus spoke about is the one that comes by belief.

[michael christopher]

Jesusistruth- WHY ARE YOU AVOIDING THE QUESTION?

If Paul says it's okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols and yet the other Apostles and Christ himself say it is not okay, WHICH IS TRUE?

How can the Bible be divinely inspired and the infallible word of God when it so bluntly contradicts itself? Why do you ignore these contradictions and just pretend as if they are not there? Do you not realize that this is a mortal sin, to simply believe the words of human beings as the words of God? Do you not realize that the Bible was created to pervert your love for Christ and turn it into a reverence for darkness?

Answer the damn question.

Why does Paul contradict Jesus? Who is right?

[jesusistruth]

Jesusistruth- WHY ARE YOU AVOIDING THE QUESTION?

If Paul says it's okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols and yet the other Apostles and Christ himself say it is not okay, WHICH IS TRUE?

How can the Bible be divinely inspired and the infallible word of God when it so bluntly contradicts itself? Why do you ignore these contradictions and just pretend as if they are not there? Do you not realize that this is a mortal sin, to simply believe the words of human beings as the words of God? Do you not realize that the Bible was created to pervert your love for Christ and turn it into a reverence for darkness?

Answer the damn question.

Why does Paul contradict Jesus? Who is right?

I don't have a good answer, this site (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/food_idols.html) makes a point though...

As for the Bible, I know it is falliable, but I can still consider it a faithful testimony.

Noone who is truly a follower the Gospel would be a partaker of evil, yet for the most part I would agree the bible offers very little spiritual growth, but neither does any other religion and 99% of the new age/mystical authors. You can sit there and chant "Om" for yourself how much ever you want and you won't be the least better person or anywhere near awakening.

Let me quote from "Revolution in World Missions (http://www.gfa.org/)".

"When commerce had been established with the Fiji Islanders, a merchant who was an atheist and skeptic landend on the island to do business. He was talking to the Fijian chief and noticed a Bible and some other paraphernalia of religion around the house.
"What a shame," he said, "that you have listened to this foolish nonsense of the missionaries."
The chief replied, "Do you see the large white stone over there? That is a stone where just a few years ago we used to smash the heads of our victims to get at their brains. Do you see that large oven over there? That is the oven where just a few years ago we used to bake the bodies of our victims before we feasted upon them. Had we not listened to what you call the nonsense of those missionaries, I assure you that your head would already be smashed on that rock and your body would be baking in that oven."
There is no record of the merchant's response to that explanation of the importance of the Gospel of Christ.

Likewise, it is much thanks to the Church that we haven't fallen victim for "radical materialism" i.e. Communism and the total neglect of morals.

*At least* the Bible makes itself good in this purpose, but there is also much more to it that makes it worthy of a chance...

[drakul]

Jesusistruth- WHY ARE YOU AVOIDING THE QUESTION?

If Paul says it's okay to eat meat sacrificed to idols and yet the other Apostles and Christ himself say it is not okay, WHICH IS TRUE?

How can the Bible be divinely inspired and the infallible word of God when it so bluntly contradicts itself? Why do you ignore these contradictions and just pretend as if they are not there? Do you not realize that this is a mortal sin, to simply believe the words of human beings as the words of God? Do you not realize that the Bible was created to pervert your love for Christ and turn it into a reverence for darkness?

Answer the damn question.

Why does Paul contradict Jesus? Who is right?

I think Rodin had it right when he said (on another thread) that Paul was sent to `spoil the well'.

Why does the Bible deliberately and constantly contradict itself - except for the teachings of Jesus? That is the only thing in the Bible that has remained intact and even Jesus' sayings have been seeded with a few negative, incendiary remarks which seem to go completely against his character and the bulk of his teachings about Love and Compassion and Forgiveness.

IOW - the Illuminati interfered and sent agents to gain control of Christianity and subvert it. Of course. that is their modus operendi to this day.

[kasalt]

This video presents another contradiction between Paul as he is presented in the book of Acts, and Paul as he presents himself in his epistles:

Video link
Brief Bible Blunders -- Episode #5 - YouTube

The relevant passages are:

Galatians 5:2-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:2-3&version=KJV); 6:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%206:12&version=NIV); 1:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201:10&version=KJV)

vs.

Acts 16:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2016:1-3&version=NIV)

[kasalt]

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote:"To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law...I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save [convert] some." (1 Corinthians 9:20b, 22b)
If I understand Paul correctly, here he was admitting that he was being pretentious with different types of people in order to win their confidence and convert them. Paul seems to refer to this tactic again in his second letter to the Corinthians, where he made this frank admission:"Being crafty, I caught you with guile." (2 Corinthians 12:16)
An English dictionary defines the word guile (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/guile) as "insidious cunning in attaining a goal; crafty or artful deception; duplicity." According to Strong's Greek Dictionary (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1388.htm), the word "guile" used here comes from the Greek word dolos, and can also be translated as "deceit".

So, it seems that Paul admitted to using deception in order to convert people to his belief system, for we can reasonably conclude that he was not literally "all things to all people", but only pretended to be in order to gain confidences and win a few converts along the way.

And yet, Jeremiah 48:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+48:10&version=KJV) clearly states:"Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully..."
Comments?

[jesusistruth]

And yet, Jeremiah 48:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+48:10&version=KJV) clearly states:"Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully..."
Comments?

I think Jeremiah is speaking about pretending to be righteous, like the Pharisees. Paul didn't pretend he believed in Christ, so his righteousness was genuine.


If you decide to get circumciesed, you have essentially denied the grace that comes from believing in Christ, which is what Paul is speaking about. When he circumsised Timothy, it was not to keep the law but to get along with the Jews.

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which[b] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

I think it's pretty clear, when taking the passage in context, that when Paul says "those who want to compel you to get circumsised" mean the Jews that want to get saved by keeping the law, and not by the Gospel, for which they would be persecuted.

[kasalt]

If you decide to get circumciesed, you have essentially denied the grace that comes from believing in Christ, which is what Paul is speaking about. When he circumsised Timothy, it was not to keep the law but to get along with the Jews.

Well that just sounds like more "guile (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/guile)" to me! What happened to Paul's words in Galatians 1:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201:10&version=NIV) and Galatians 5:2-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:2-3&version=NIV)? Paul was quite pretentious, was he not?

[jesusistruth]

Well that just sounds like more "guile (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/guile)" to me! What happened to Paul's words in Galatians 1:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201:10&version=NIV) and Galatians 5:2-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:2-3&version=NIV)? Paul was quite pretentious, was he not?

Yes, but he wasn't pretentious to God but to men, and for the sake of Christ, and not his own. (the ultimate aim was to convert them, and not win their approval by becoming one of them)

[kasalt]

In Galatians 2:10, Paul refers back to his meeting with James and the Apostles (also recorded in Acts 15). According to Paul, the Apostles left him with only one instruction:"All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Galatians 2:10)
No doubt they did discuss aiding the poor at some point, but was there anything more to it? According to Paul, that was it. But is this true according to the book of Acts? It is not, for Acts 15:20-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:19-29&version=NIV) records that the Apostles instructed Paul to include four specific points in his teachings to new converts. Those points were: 1) abstain from food sacrificed to idols, 2) abstain from blood, 3) abstain from the meat of strangled animals, and 4) abstain from sexual immorality. And yet we know that Paul taught otherwise on at least one of those points--that being the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols (I Corinthians 8:4, 8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:4-9&version=KJV)).

[kasalt]

This is a montage of quotes I selected from several of Paul's epistles regarding Paul's attitude towards the Apostles and James (James was not one of the Twelve, but he was a close blood relative of Jesus--perhaps a cousin or half-brother--who became a leader of the early Christian Church in Jerusalem along with the twelve Apostles). In reference to them, Paul wrote:I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles, for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles. I labored more abundantly than they all. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. Are they ministers of Christ? I am more.

These who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were is of no substance to me, God accepts no man's reputation) in conference added nothing to me. Rather, when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.
Sources: 2 Corinthians 11:5, 12:11; 1 Corinthians 15:10; 2 Corinthians 11:22-23a; Galatians 2:6, 11, 13-14a.

As you can see, Paul had a high opinion of his version of "the gospel" and a low opinion of the teachings of the original Apostles of Jesus. According to Paul, the Apostles were not living up to the truth of the gospel--his gospel.

Paul was clearly out to gather followers to himself and to his version of Christianity, which was clearly different from the version of Christianity that was being taught by the original Apostles of Jesus, hence their conflict. Paul's teachings on eating meat sacrificed to idols as contrasted with the Apostles' teaching on the same subject is but one example of that difference.

Paul was not above publicly and vociferously naming and shaming the Apostles of Jesus, but the Apostles took the higher road. They did not respond in similar fashion. Rather than respond directly to Paul by name--which would have turned their debate into a clash of personalities--they simply stayed focused on their teachings. For example, James' epistle is in a number of ways a response to Paul's teachings with which he disagreed. For example, compare James 1:13-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:13-16&version=KJV) with Romans 7:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207:8&version=AMP); James 2:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:21&version=KJV) with Romans 4:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204:2&version=KJV); and James 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:24&version=KJV) with Romans 3:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:28&version=KJV). Likewise, Revelation 2:14, 20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:14,%2020&version=KJV) (allegedly written by the Apostle John) weighs in on eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols, which Paul taught was permissible within certain parameters (I Corinthians 8:4-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:4-8&version=KJV); I Corinthians 10:27-30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:27-30&version=KJV)).

[1964]

I don't have a good answer, this site (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/food_idols.html) makes a point though...

As for the Bible, I know it is falliable, but I can still consider it a faithful testimony.

Noone who is truly a follower the Gospel would be a partaker of evil, yet for the most part I would agree the bible offers very little spiritual growth, but neither does any other religion and 99% of the new age/mystical authors. You can sit there and chant "Om" for yourself how much ever you want and you won't be the least better person or anywhere near awakening.

Let me quote from "Revolution in World Missions (http://www.gfa.org/)".



Likewise, it is much thanks to the Church that we haven't fallen victim for "radical materialism" i.e. Communism and the total neglect of morals.

*At least* the Bible makes itself good in this purpose, but there is also much more to it that makes it worthy of a chance...

There is no contradiction. The matter is clear in Scripture, and it's a matter of knowledge and conscience. Eating food sacrificed to idols is a sin for those who believe in idols. But for a person who knows in his conscience that the idols are only false and man-made, then the food is only food and eating it isn't a sin. Eating the food isn't a sin when the knowledge is firm in our conscience that an idol is nothing. A person whose faith in Christ isn't yet strong or matured, however, could easily have nagging doubts and thoughts about idols, especially if he's grown up in a culture where sacrifices to idols are common. In that case, if he's not firm within himself that idols are nothing, then he could easily violate his conscience by eating the sacrificial meat.

I mentioned this in another post in this thread - Peter talked about how some of Paul's teachings are very difficult. And they are. In this particular instance, regarding this one particular teaching, God's people are being called to a greater and more mature faith in Christ. But this also includes needing to learn that by our greater faith, we musn't place a stumbling block in the way of those brothers whose own faith is still young and weak. If by eating meat sacrificed to idols we don't violate our own conscience, but we violate the conscience of a weaker brother who sees us eating the meat, then we sin against him and we sin against Christ.

It's a complicated, difficult matter that requires serious, sober contemplation. It also requires our maturity in Christ, which isn't something we can cause to happen by simply snapping our fingers. To toss it around like this, as just fodder for debate, is extremely dangerous. It's also unwise to try to settle such important matters in a mixed group of people where you have unbelievers, false believers, and young believers all trying to argue the matter. Since these teachings are difficult for God's Own people, then how can unbelievers and false believers ever understand them? In that case, it's the young believer who's in immense danger - his weak, but growing, faith could easily be destroyed by the arguments of unbelievers and false believers who are trying to understand something that only God's people have the hope of understanding.

Jesus Christ warned us that this life, in this world, is a spiritual war. And nowhere have I seen such a concentrated effort to destroy people's faith in Christ than in this forum. The worst of the attacks doesn't even come from unbelievers. The devil delivers his hardest attacks through false Christians. Glory be to Christ that He warned us even against this.

Be on your guard!

[phildee3]

There is no contradiction. The matter is clear in Scripture, and it's a matter of knowledge and conscience. Eating food sacrificed to idols is a sin for those who believe in idols. But for a person who knows in his conscience that the idols are only false and man-made, then the food is only food and eating it isn't a sin. Eating the food isn't a sin when the knowledge is firm in our conscience that an idol is nothing. A person whose faith in Christ isn't yet strong or matured, however, could easily have nagging doubts and thoughts about idols, especially if he's grown up in a culture where sacrifices to idols are common. In that case, if he's not firm within himself that idols are nothing, then he could easily violate his conscience by eating the sacrificial meat.

I mentioned this in another post in this thread - Peter talked about how some of Paul's teachings are very difficult. And they are. In this particular instance, regarding this one particular teaching, God's people are being called to a greater and more mature faith in Christ. But this also includes needing to learn that by our greater faith, we musn't place a stumbling block in the way of those brothers whose own faith is still young and weak. If by eating meat sacrificed to idols we don't violate our own conscience, but we violate the conscience of a weaker brother who sees us eating the meat, then we sin against him and we sin against Christ.

It's a complicated, difficult matter that requires serious, sober contemplation. It also requires our maturity in Christ, which isn't something we can cause to happen by simply snapping our fingers. To toss it around like this, as just fodder for debate, is extremely dangerous. It's also unwise to try to settle such important matters in a mixed group of people where you have unbelievers, false believers, and young believers all trying to argue the matter. Since these teachings are difficult for God's Own people, then how can unbelievers and false believers ever understand them? In that case, it's the young believer who's in immense danger - his weak, but growing, faith could easily be destroyed by the arguments of unbelievers and false believers who are trying to understand something that only God's people have the hope of understanding.

Jesus Christ warned us that this life, in this world, is a spiritual war. And nowhere have I seen such a concentrated effort to destroy people's faith in Christ than in this forum. The worst of the attacks doesn't even come from unbelievers. The devil delivers his hardest attacks through false Christians. Glory be to Christ that He warned us even against this.

Be on your guard!

Good post!

Good advice!!

[kasalt]

There is no contradiction. The matter is clear in Scripture, and it's a matter of knowledge and conscience. Eating food sacrificed to idols is a sin for those who believe in idols. But for a person who knows in his conscience that the idols are only false and man-made, then the food is only food and eating it isn't a sin. Eating the food isn't a sin when the knowledge is firm in our conscience that an idol is nothing. A person whose faith in Christ isn't yet strong or matured, however, could easily have nagging doubts and thoughts about idols, especially if he's grown up in a culture where sacrifices to idols are common. In that case, if he's not firm within himself that idols are nothing, then he could easily violate his conscience by eating the sacrificial meat.

According to Acts 15:20-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:19-29&version=NIV), the Apostles also instructed converts not to eat the meat of strangled animals, and not to eat blood. If I may ask, what is your opinion of these prohibitions? Do you believe that it is a sin for a Christian to eat the meat of a strangled animal, or to consume an animals blood?

I mentioned this in another post in this thread - Peter talked about how some of Paul's teachings are very difficult.

As I mentioned in another post on this thread, there are many solid reasons to suspect that II Peter is pseudepigraphical, meaning that it was written by someone else who falsely claimed to be Peter. Here are just a couple of those reasons:

1) II Peter is not mentioned at all by early Christian writers until the time of Origen (3rd century AD), and when he does mention it, it is to say that II Peter's authenticity was contested. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon are completely silent about it. In Eusebius' time, II Peter was regarded by Christians as Antilegomena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It wasn't until the late 4th century that the Roman Catholic Church, in league with the Pope and the Emperor of Rome, declared II Peter to be canonical.

2) The author of II Peter identifies himself as "Simeon Peter". The use of "Simeon" in reference to Peter is a variant of the name that is completely unique to II Peter. Everywhere else in the New Testament, the name given is "Simon". (The Greek transliteration for "Simon" is Simwna, but in II Peter the transliteration is Sumewn, for "Simeon".) This, to me, suggests evidence of forgery on the part of the real author, who perhaps was unaware of the preferred variant of the name.

Many more sound reasons in support of the pseudonymity of II Peter are given in the following articles:

Authorship of the Petrine epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

It's a complicated, difficult matter that requires serious, sober contemplation. It also requires our maturity in Christ, which isn't something we can cause to happen by simply snapping our fingers. To toss it around like this, as just fodder for debate, is extremely dangerous. It's also unwise to try to settle such important matters in a mixed group of people where you have unbelievers, false believers, and young believers all trying to argue the matter. Since these teachings are difficult for God's Own people, then how can unbelievers and false believers ever understand them? In that case, it's the young believer who's in immense danger - his weak, but growing, faith could easily be destroyed by the arguments of unbelievers and false believers who are trying to understand something that only God's people have the hope of understanding.

This forum space is provided for us by David Icke--a man who has been on public record stating his opinion on the non-historicity of the Jesus story. Any Christians visiting this forum undoubtedly know that before coming here, hence they should come here knowing that they will be exposed to information that they may find challenging to their faith. Therefore, I should think that this would be the perfect forum for discussion of the most controversial topics imaginable regarding the Christian faith.

Besides which, imagine what it would do for the "weak, but growing, faith" of a "young believer" if you were to prove to them that the points I have raised are erroneous!

Jesus Christ warned us that this life, in this world, is a spiritual war. And nowhere have I seen such a concentrated effort to destroy people's faith in Christ than in this forum. The worst of the attacks doesn't even come from unbelievers. The devil delivers his hardest attacks through false Christians. Glory be to Christ that He warned us even against this.

Be on your guard!

Be on your guard against what, thinking instead of believing blindly?

[clachan]

Ours is not to reason why.
Ours is to just do and die.......British forces.

Ofcourse,its natural human behaviour to ask questions before accepting anything,unless we apply the above moto.

I dont care if Paul was a false apostle or not really,Jesus is central and simple to understand for all people.Thats what really matters,not fundamentalist nit picking on either side.

The truth will out one day,no one here is anywhere near it no matter what they claim.

I will always question myself and my beliefs as it is my natural inclination,other men can say,act and believe what they like.

[kasalt]

I think St. PAUL is one of those Agents of Influence who 'saw the light' and was sent to take control of the budding Christian religion and distort the Master's teaching. Do you notice Paul almost never quotes any of Jesus words or teachings?

True, Paul very rarely quoted the words of Jesus. But he did quote a great deal from Plato and many other "pagan" Greek philosophers and poets. The reason why most people are not aware of this is because most of his quotes from those sources are without attribution.

For example, Plato wrote in Phaedrus (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html) that we only perceive reality as "seen through a glass dimly". Paul echoed Plato as follows: "We see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12). Additionally, in his Apology (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html), Plato wrote that Socrates was deemed wise because he knew he knew nothing. Plato quoted Socrates as saying:"I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, but I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know."
Paul echoed that sentiment in his first letter to the Corinthians, where he wrote:"If any man think that he knows any thing, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." (1 Cor 8:2)Paul also quoted other pagan Greek philosopher-poets. For example, in Acts 17:28, Paul states, "For in Him we live and move and have our being." This is actually a quote from Epimenides - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' Creatia. Paul quoted Epimenides again in Titus 1:12, in which he wrote, "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, 'the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies'." Below is the actual passage of Epimenides' Creatia from which Paul derived those quotes:They fashioned a tomb for thee [O Zeus], O holy and high one-
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
(Notice how the above passage, which actually refers to the immortality of Zeus, could also be reapplied to Jesus. Look at the first and third lines and replace Zeus with Jesus: "They fashioned a tomb for thee [O Jesus], O holy and high one...But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever...")

Again in Acts 17:28, Paul states, "Certain of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring'." Paul was quoting from the opening lines of Aratus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' Phaenomena (http://www.theoi.com/Text/AratusPhaenomena.html):From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed;
full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men;
full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus.
For we are also his offspring...
In 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul quoted Menander - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia when he stated, "Evil communications corrupt good manners".

In fact, Paul would have us believe that even Jesus himself quoted the Greek philosopher-poets. In Acts 9:5, during Saul's visionary conversion experience on the road to Damascus, Jesus is quoted as saying to him:"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
The statement, "It is hard for you to kick against the goads," always struck me as a rather unusual thing for Christ to have said, in part because when I first read it, I didn't understand what it meant. Besides, which, it struck me as rather unlike anything Jesus is recorded to have said in the Gospels, and therefore it seemed like it was a bit "out of character" for him to say that, in my opinion. It also doesn't appear in the Old Testament.

It turns out that this phrase was actually taken from an ancient pagan Greek proverb that predates the New Testament. The analogy of an animal kicking against the goads was used in pagan Greek literature to refer to a human being who was resisting the will of the gods. It is found first in Pindar's Odes, Pythia 2.94-5:"It is best to take the yoke on one's neck and bear it lightly; kicking against the goads makes the path treacherous."
The phrase is also found in Euripides' Bacchae:"I would sacrifice to the god rather than kick against his goads in anger, a mortal against a god."It is found yet again in Aeschylus, Agamemnon, Line 1624:"Do not kick against the goads lest you strike to your own hurt."
Reference: http://www.christianorigins.com/euripidesluke.html

It would appear that after his resurrection, Jesus found time to read the classics! :D

In addition to all of the above, there is a very informative article by F.F. Powell entitled "Saint Paul's Homage to Plato", that goes into even further detail about Paul's dependence on Plato and other classical Greek philosophers. Highly recommended. Here is the link:

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/April/mtpub2.asp

[drakul]

True, Paul very rarely quoted the words of Jesus. But he did quote a great deal from Plato and many other "pagan" Greek philosophers and poets. The reason why most people are not aware of this is because most of his quotes from those sources are without attribution.

For example, Plato wrote in Phaedrus (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html) that we only perceive reality as "seen through a glass dimly". Paul echoed Plato as follows: "We see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12). Additionally, in his Apology (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html), Plato wrote that Socrates was deemed wise because he knew he knew nothing. Plato quoted Socrates as saying:"I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, but I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know."
Paul echoed that sentiment in his first letter to the Corinthians, where he wrote: "If any man think that he knows any thing, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." (1 Cor 8:2)Paul also quoted other pagan Greek philosopher-poets. For example, in Acts 17:28, Paul states, "For in Him we live and move and have our being." This is actually a quote from Epimenides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides)' Creatia. Paul quoted Epimenides again in Titus 1:12, in which he wrote, "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, 'the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies'." Below is the actual passage of Epimenides' Creatia from which Paul derived those quotes:They fashioned a tomb for thee [O Zeus], O holy and high one-
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
Again in Acts 17:28, Paul states, "Certain of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring'." This is actually a quote from the opening lines of Aratus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aratus)' Phaenomena (http://www.theoi.com/Text/AratusPhaenomena.html):From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed;
full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men;
full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus.
For we are also his offspring...
In 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul quoted Menander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menander) when he stated, "Evil communications corrupt good manners".

Paul would have us believe that even Jesus himself quoted the Greek philosopher-poets. In Acts 9:5, during Saul's visionary conversion experience on the road to Damascus, Jesus is quoted as saying to him:"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
The statement, "It is hard for you to kick against the goads," always struck me as a rather unusual thing for Christ to have said, in part because when I first read it, I didn't understand what it meant. Besides, which, it struck me as rather unlike anything Jesus is recorded to have said in the Gospels, and therefore it seemed like it was a bit "out of character" for him to say that, in my opinion. It also doesn't appear in the Old Testament.

It turns out that this phrase was actually taken from an ancient pagan Greek proverb that predates the New Testament. The analogy of an animal kicking against the goads was used in pagan Greek literature to refer to a human being who was resisting the will of the gods. It is found first in Pindar's Odes, Pythia 2.94-5:"It is best to take the yoke on one's neck and bear it lightly; kicking against the goads makes the path treacherous."
The phrase is also found in Euripides' Bacchae:"I would sacrifice to the god rather than kick against his goads in anger, a mortal against a god."It is found yet again in Aeschylus, Agamemnon, Line 1624:"Do not kick against the goads lest you strike to your own hurt."
Reference: http://www.christianorigins.com/euripidesluke.html

It would appear that after his resurrection, Jesus found time to read the classics! :D

In addition to all of the above, there is a very informative article by F.F. Powell entitled "Saint Paul's Homage to Plato", that goes into even further detail about Paul's dependence on Plato and other classical Greek philosophers. Highly recommended. Here is the link:

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/April/mtpub2.asp


WELL DONE Ksalt. So what does that tell us?

[drakul]

According to Acts 15:20-29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:19-29&version=NIV), the Apostles also instructed converts not to eat the meat of strangled animals, and not to eat blood. If I may ask, what is your opinion of these prohibitions? Do you believe that it is a sin for a Christian to eat the meat of a strangled animal, or to consume an animals blood?


The first thing that struck me was - how do you know it's an animal's blood??? We only assume it's animal blood. What kind it is, is specificially not mentioned. Drinking of human blood, cannibalism was accepted as de rigeur by many pagan societies. Like Herodotus in The Histories, often mentions `VICTIMS' sacriced to the gods. Leaves you wondering ...

[kasalt]

The first thing that struck me was - how do you know it's an animal's blood?

Mosaic dietary laws forbid the consumption of animal blood, or any blood for that matter:
Leviticus 17:10-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:10-11&version=KJV)
"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

[drakul]

Mosaic dietary laws forbid the consumption of animal blood, or any blood for that matter:
Leviticus 17:10-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2017:10-11&version=KJV)
"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."


I said many `PAGAN' societies ritually drank blood, I was not referring to the Jews. Paul was not preaching in Hebrewland but in Greek dominated Asia Minor. Greeks did practice human sacrifice AND so did the Hebrews upon occaision. The Bible records several instances of Human Sacrifice by the Jews (uh including Jesus Christ).

[kasalt]

WELL DONE Ksalt. So what does that tell us?

Good question!

I can't be sure yet. As we have both pointed out, Paul barely referred to the sayings of Jesus at all in his epistles. Instead, his writings prove that he was quite heavily reliant upon Greek philosophy for his ideas (in spite of what might seem to some as an apparent claim to the contrary in Colossians 2:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2%3A8&version=KJV)). This speaks volumes, although I'm not clear on what it says, exactly. I just know that it says a lot. I do plan on looking into this further...much further.

[raphael]

so this is where all the bible babblers have found refuge.
come out come out where ever ewe are...
time for a sacrifice...

I tend to agree with you on this,though Iam not a Bible scholar nor a historian

no you are just a reBLEATer dude.


Saul of Tarsus was a pharisee who never met Jesus apart from his claim to have seen him in a vision.


duh
that is right
duh and he hardly said anything about jeSuS...the only fella of real significance who lived while jeSuS lived, said almost NOTHING about jeSuS...and Paul was also the 'founder' of the church?
THERE ARE NO EYEWITNESSES
why does that statement not get through to the plebes?

Even Paul did not waste much time trying to prove/discuss a real jeSuS, instead focusing on the 'spiritual' aspects.
But here we are 2000 years later, and the plebes sound like blithering babbling cut and paste idiots trying to defend or prove a physical jeSuS?
St. Paul the founder did not waste his time...so why do the herd of EWE?

just more bullshit that plebes step in.


I can only say that i believe in Christ,as far as Saul is concerned im not prepared to accept him over and above James brother of Jesus,how come Saul prvailed while James sank into obscurity ?

yes well I study more than a IGNORANT plebe like you realizes clachan.
and the most interesting I have found out about Paul who had big ideas has to do with lying LION kings and much papal-BULL shit.

JUST MORE ARCHETYPE...but any detail recorded is for a good reason.
And what would that good reason be...to record archetypal information in the narrative (a trick held over from pre-literate era, the oral traditions?
Would it be for prosperity sake?

Duh
Duh

when you flipped flopped from being a wiccan to a bible babbler clachan...you should have made a pit stop at the library or a bookstore in between.

Ulansey suggests convincingly that the mythological synthesis and expression of the precession took place in the university town of TarSuS, the birthplace of St. Paul and a center of Stoic philosophy. PerZeuS was said to be the founder of TarSuS and is commonly represented on the city's coins; another symbol of TarSuS is the astronomical representation of a LION attacking a BULL.
TarSuS had a large Persian population....


**TARSUS = LION attacking BULL**

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/kachina2012/Tarot52811.jpg

CODE X = 11 2 5 8

LION = 5 and BULL = 2

In the Gospel of Thomas what is the magical 7th saying of jesus?
And do the fucking math ya IGNORANT plebe.
magical 7 = 5 + 2

plebes don't bother to read this...it will just upset the inner ewe.
LIONs eating MAN in the gospel of thomas?
>>>http://2012forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=228329#p228329

ewe folks have no idea who I am...
a clue for ewe to follow:
I AM the DOOR (John 10:9) enter using phi and pi?
http://2012forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=213977#p213977

IT IS A STARRY CELESTIAL NARRATIVE YA BLITHERING IGNORANT RELIGIOUS PLEBES...on one level...on the other level...it discusses your DNA etc.

Watch me prove your IGNORANCE...discuss PRECESSION....let's go...
LIONS and BULLS and HUMANS.

CODE 52 = 25

mesatan
mesanta
or
namaste

[drakul]

Good question!

I can't be sure yet. As we have both pointed out, Paul barely referred to the sayings of Jesus at all in his epistles. Instead, his writings prove that he was quite heavily reliant upon Greek philosophy for his ideas (in spite of what might seem to some as an apparent claim to the contrary in Colossians 2:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians+2%3A8&version=KJV)). This speaks volumes, although I'm not clear on what it says, exactly. I just know that it says a lot. I do plan on looking into this further...much further.

It's important that you brought up how Paul was influenced by Greek thought and Humanism(?) It gives an insight as to how Christianity was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. When you think about it, most of the apostles went to Greek-speaking areas, Syria, Egpt, Asia Minor, Greece. Were any of these apostles martyred by the Greeks?

On the other hand, the Romans killed all the major apostles sent to them, Peter, Paul (even if he was a `false apostle'), and of course the Romans killed Jesus himself. Yet Vatican claims to be the `true church'? IMO they really just jumped on the Christian bandwagon when Constantine came into power. Even then Constantine moved the capitol of Rome to Greek-speaking Constantinople. A huge step.

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

:) The problem with xtian gnostics, and other pagans and heathens is: They do not think things through.

Even though I have 'schooled' kasalt for 2+ years, he persists in his folly, a Fools Errand.

The Pagans/Heathens desire to convert The New Testament, a Jewish Torah Conscious and Torah Observant Document INTO a Paganic Greek Document.

This is deliberate misdirection and misrepresentation on his part.

The Pagans/Heathens have an 'Open Invitation' from Yahweh and Yahshua haMessiah, to progress to a Higher MetaPhysical Plane.

Most decline and prefer to attempt to drag the Higher Wisdom(The Book of Yahweh) down to their Base, Carnal Level. Oh well..:rolleyes:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/athenian_charles.pdf

I suggest you read this Drakul, and do not be taken in by kasalts deception.

1: The Apostle Shaul was an ardent servant of Yahweh and Yahshua haMessiah, this declaration is supported by overwhelming Scriptural Evidence.


Engaging the (Neo)Pagan Mind:
Paul’s Encounter with Athenian Culture
as a Model for Cultural Apologetics
(Acts 17:16–34)


].........Why was Tarsus the city which should produce the apostle to the Gentiles? Uniting
oriental and occidental cultural and intellectual life, the institutions of Tarsus were uniquely
suited to mold Paul’s intellectual development.15 Cicero was governor of Tarsus in the midfifties
BC. It was here that Mark Antony met Cleopatra in 41 BC. Tarsus was the native city
of several famous Stoic philosophers—among them, Zeno, Antipater, Athenadorus, and
Nestor. In the period of 27 BC-AD 14, during the reign of Augustus, Tarsus came to be
renowned as a center of intellectual life. As a “university” city, Tarsus is said to have
surpassed Athens and Alexandria in terms of zeal for learning.16
Prosperous and cosmopolitan, Tarsus would have prepared Paul well for engaging
Hellenistic culture.......[/FONT]...

IV. Literary-Rhetorical Strategy In Acts 17:16–34
A. The Narrative Framework of Paul’s Areopagus Speech
Acts 14:8–18 and 17:16–34 contain notable similarities. In both Lystra and Athens, the
Apostle adapts his preaching to his audience by assimilating a more or less Greek view of the
universe, with its human quest for God. Luke’s narrative in chap. 17 is far more extended,
incorporating detail that tantalizingly suggests eye-witness testimony.36 Supporting his
argument by quotations from Epimenides and Aratus of Soli, Paul employs a line of reasoning
not unlike that of classical Greek orators. Luke depicts the Athenians’ response to Paul in the
agora as moderately bemused. Significantly, it is the introduction of the notion of a bodily
resurrection that evokes a strong reaction (vv. 18 and 32). To the Greek intelligentsia, the idea
of somatic resurrection is patently absurd, for it flies in the face of the Platonic-Stoic view of
psycho-immortality.
Perhaps Luke has in mind the tradition regarding Socrates, who also was accused in
Athens of introducing “new gods” (cf. v. 18). For this we are dependent on the testimony of
Xenophon: “Socrates does wrongly, for he does not acknowledge the gods which the state
acknowledges; rather, he introduces other new-fashioned gods.”37
[p.53]
Indeed, not only Socrates but also Anaxagoras (500–428 BC) and Protagoras (480–410 BC)
were accused in Athens of introducing foreign gods. In the more recent past, Cicero had
criticized the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus for embracing “unknown gods” (ignotorum deorum).38 Hence, it is possible that Luke is attempting to portray Paul in the “Socratic”
mold.39 After all, Luke had noted that in the agora Paul had “disputed … daily with those who
happened to be there” (17:17). Showing the apostle to the Gentiles in the marketplace,
engaging in dialogue like Socrates and the great philosophers of the past, and then addressing
a select audience (perhaps the educational commission of the Council of the Areopagus),
Luke has hit an apologetic homerun. Paul is seen operating at his apologetic best, engaged in
moral discourse with the intellectual and cultural elite of his day. The striking significance of
Acts 17:16–34 is the ability of Paul to clothe biblical revelation in a cultured and relevant
argument to his pagan contemporaries.
H. Flender has summed up Luke’s intention in this way: (1) to communicate the
Christian message to his readers in the language of the audience, utilizing pagan categories to
express the reality of divine revelation;40 (2) to build on pagan concepts through illustration,
both philosophical and literary; (3) to adjust pagan assumptions in the light of biblical
revelation (viz., via creation, transcendence, and self-disclosure); (4) to give evidence of
God’s self-disclosure (through the resurrection); and (5) to move toward the goal of
repentance on the part of the reader through rhetorical persuasion.41......


Three times in the Lukan narrative the resurrection is mentioned —vv. 18, 31, and 32.
While 17:16–34 contains no explicit Christology, the seal of divine truth—and thus, a key to
an effective apologetic in pagan culture—is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is by no
means incidental that at this point in Paul’s speech the mood of his audience shifts. Scorn and
derision surface both in the agora, where Paul had earlier been “dialoguing,” and at the
Areopagus. While Paul utilizes the utmost in skill and erudition to ensure that the packagingof his message does not offend his audience, the content of the Christian apostolic kerygma
inevitably is scandalous.
Summing up Paul’s rhetorical strategy in Athens, we may note that the Apostle was
knowledgeable, dialectical, well-read, relevant, and rhetorically skillful. What particularly
strikes the reader is his ability to accommodate himself to the knowledge-base of most
Athenians. Viewing Paul’s encounter with Athenian culture as such, we may conclude that his
ministry was not a “failure.” Nor is it necessary to assume that his not-too-distant reflections
about the power of the cross, recorded in 1 Corinthians 1–2, were penned with a wrong
apologetic model (i.e., Athens) in mind.
To the contrary, a more accurate assessment of Paul’s ministry in Athens may be
summed up by his own testimony to the Corinthians: “I have made myself a servant to all,
that I might win more. To the Jews I became a Jew … ; to those without the law [pagans], [I
[p.60]
became] like those without the law … I have become all things to all men, that I might by all
means save some” (1 Cor 9:19–22).

Drakul, the single most valuable assest for understanding The Book of Yahweh is: HONESTY, set aside your own personal bias and actually read the Scripture. It is not ambiguous.

Deliberate Liars are an impediment to Seekers/Sojourners.

Kind Regards

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

Here are some further 'insights' to the Apostle Shaul:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/paul.php

Paul of Tarsus

PAUL AND JOHN THE BAPTIST:
AN ODD COUPLE?
J. Ramsey Michaels

http://98.131.162.170//tynbul/library/TynBull_1991_42_2_04_Michaels_Paul_JohnBapt.pdf


No one will argue that John the Baptist was the major
influence on Paul’s life and thought. Paul’s language is saturated
with the reality of the Holy Spirit and the risen Christ in a way that
John the Baptist’s never could have been. Yet John seems to have
been for Paul a precedent, his only role model other than Jesus
himself for the preaching of ‘eschatological repentance’ to Israel
and the Gentiles. He was a more appropriate role model than Jesus
precisely because he was not Jesus, but (like Paul) someone who
called people to believe in Jesus (Acts 19:4). Paul’s selfidentification
with John the Baptist may have served as a check
against mysticism, and a protection against the danger of
identifying his own mind and consciousness too closely with that
of Jesus (cf., e.g., Gal. 2:20a, ‘I no longer live, but Christ lives in
me’). If Jesus was for Paul the Risen One, he was also still the
Coming One, even as he had been for John. If the Spirit
represented for Paul the ‘already’ of Christian experience, John and
his remembered words may have represented the ‘not yet’, and the
continuing need to ‘do works worthy of repentance’ and to ‘escape
the wrath to come’.

Discernment and Discrimination are very important assets.

It's 2010, stop the deceivers!

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_History.pdf

THE PAUL OF HISTORY AND THE APOSTLE OF FAITH
THE TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT LECTURE, 1978*
(Originally published in Tyndale Bulletin 29, 1978, pp. 61–88. Reproduced by permission

My view of Paul can be summarized in a paraphrase of Romans 1:3-5. Paul, having
been born a Jew according to the flesh, became a true Jew, a son of God, according to the
Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, and on the same basis was
commissioned as the apostle to the Gentiles, holding together in himself the triple
resurrection of Jesus, of Israel, and of his own baptism. Paul’s life and thought flow
consistently from his vision on the Damascus Road, and salvation-history and
justification by faith take their proper places as inescapable partners within his
Christology, which is itself based on the doctrine of God, the one true God of Jew and
Gentile alike, the God who reveals his righteousness in the gospel of his Son. The
categories with which we are to understand Paul, and for that matter the whole New
Testament, are not the thin, tired and anachronistic ones of Lutheran polemic. They are
the ones given to us by the Paul of history himself. Of course there will always be
problems and arguments over details and passages and words. I would not pretend to
have solved all the problems at a stroke. But at least we have here a framework within
which Paul’s ideas are not played off against each other, nor cheaply reconciled, but
rather integrated and mutually illuminating. The real Paul, the Paul of the letters, must
continue to provide the critique of the modernized apostle. His view of history and of
faith, in which the two are not divorced but held inescapably together, must inform our
exegesis of him at every point. And, therefore, this programme can only be carried out in
a truly Pauline fashion, by holding together a true historical method and the perspective
of faith, by refusing to lapse into historical scepticism on the one hand or into
unhistorical, or unthinking, pietism on the other.


If anyone holds a belief that the Apostle Shaul was not a Torah Conscious and Torah Observant Servant of Yahweh and Yahshua haMessia and the Council of Jerusale, needs to continue their research, and use quality materiels.

Kind Regards

[clachan]

so this is where all the bible babblers have found refuge.
come out come out where ever ewe are...
time for a sacrifice...



no you are just a reBLEATer dude.



duh
that is right
duh and he hardly said anything about jeSuS...the only fella of real significance who lived while jeSuS lived, said almost NOTHING about jeSuS...and Paul was also the 'founder' of the church?
THERE ARE NO EYEWITNESSES
why does that statement not get through to the plebes?

Even Paul did not waste much time trying to prove/discuss a real jeSuS, instead focusing on the 'spiritual' aspects.
But here we are 2000 years later, and the plebes sound like blithering babbling cut and paste idiots trying to defend or prove a physical jeSuS?
St. Paul the founder did not waste his time...so why do the herd of EWE?

just more bullshit that plebes step in.



yes well I study more than a IGNORANT plebe like you realizes clachan.
and the most interesting I have found out about Paul who had big ideas has to do with lying LION kings and much papal-BULL shit.

JUST MORE ARCHETYPE...but any detail recorded is for a good reason.
And what would that good reason be...to record archetypal information in the narrative (a trick held over from pre-literate era, the oral traditions?
Would it be for prosperity sake?

Duh
Duh

when you flipped flopped from being a wiccan to a bible babbler clachan...you should have made a pit stop at the library or a bookstore in between.




**TARSUS = LION attacking BULL**

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/kachina2012/Tarot52811.jpg

CODE X = 11 2 5 8

LION = 5 and BULL = 2

In the Gospel of Thomas what is the magical 7th saying of jesus?
And do the fucking math ya IGNORANT plebe.
magical 7 = 5 + 2

plebes don't bother to read this...it will just upset the inner ewe.
LIONs eating MAN in the gospel of thomas?
>>>http://2012forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=228329#p228329

ewe folks have no idea who I am...
a clue for ewe to follow:
I AM the DOOR (John 10:9) enter using phi and pi?
http://2012forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=213977#p213977

IT IS A STARRY CELESTIAL NARRATIVE YA BLITHERING IGNORANT RELIGIOUS PLEBES...on one level...on the other level...it discusses your DNA etc.

Watch me prove your IGNORANCE...discuss PRECESSION....let's go...
LIONS and BULLS and HUMANS.

CODE 52 = 25

mesatan
mesanta
or
namaste


Ralph,may i suggest you empty your head of all this useless,non sensical bullshit and start from scratch !
Here,s astarter for you:

When a man is ever bitter,resentful,unkind,and critical;never gentle,constuctive,praising,and compassionate,then poison trickles through his inner being and must in the end reappear in his bodily being.

[kasalt]

John the Baptist was the major influence on Paul’s life and thought.This would seem somewhat unlikely considering that Paul never once so much as mentioned John's name or even alluded to him in any of his epistles.

Furthermore John the Baptist was a Nazarite, but in I Corinthians 11:14, Paul wrote:"Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
This is a rather odd thing for Paul to have said, considering what the Old Testament teaches about men who take the Nazarite vow:"They must never cut their hair throughout the time of their vow, for they are holy and set apart to the LORD. Until the time of their vow has been fulfilled, they must let their hair grow long." (Numbers 6:5)
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Nazarites (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=N&artid=142):"The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice."
However, some Nazarites took lifelong vows:"A Nazarite for life might cut his too abundant hair once a year, but a Samson Nazarite might not cut his hair under any circumstances."
Samson and Samuel are two examples from the Old Testament of men who were Nazarites for life. In the New Testament, John the Baptist was a Nazarite for life, hence he would have had long hair. And yet, Paul said that it is shameful for a man to have long hair, and that "nature itself" teaches us this. But how exactly does "nature" teach us that it is "shameful" for a man to have long hair? The answer boils down to a pseudo-scientific belief held by the ancient Greeks that long hair would make a man infertile: When Paul tells the church in Corinth that "nature teaches" that it is "degrading" for men to wear their hair long, the apostle to the gentiles is alluding to once-common beliefs about the role of hair in sexual intercourse...Men with long locks would divert too much semen from their scrotum where their pubic hair and testicles have become larger at puberty. Luxurious hair on women serves them well, however, because those long, hollow hairs add to the suction in her body.

"Long feminine hairs assist the uterus in drawing semen upward and inward; masculine testicles, which are connected to the brain by two channels, facilitate the drawing of semen downward and outward," wrote Martin. The favorite Hippocratic test for fertility in women was linked to the belief about the strong suction power of their head of hair.
Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_9_121/ai_n6173721/

[drakul]

I thought Samson was a Philistine, not a Jew.

[kasalt]

I thought Samson was a Philistine, not a Jew.

No, you must be thinking of Goliath, the giant Philistine.

Here's a link:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=S&artid=122

[yhwhschild]

It's important that you brought up how Paul was influenced by Greek thought and Humanism(?) It gives an insight as to how Christianity was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. When you think about it, most of the apostles went to Greek-speaking areas, Syria, Egpt, Asia Minor, Greece. Were any of these apostles martyred by the Greeks?

On the other hand, the Romans killed all the major apostles sent to them, Peter, Paul (even if he was a `false apostle'), and of course the Romans killed Jesus himself. Yet Vatican claims to be the `true church'? IMO they really just jumped on the Christian bandwagon when Constantine came into power. Even then Constantine moved the capitol of Rome to Greek-speaking Constantinople. A huge step.

I think the correct answer is that Paul taught like a Hellenized Pharasee as Judaism was heavily influenced by both Greek and Babylonian teachings.

[yhwhschild]

I thought Samson was a Philistine, not a Jew.

No he was a Jew and also the first Nazerite.

[yhwhschild]

This would seem somewhat unlikely considering that Paul never once so much as mentioned John's name or even alluded to him in any of his epistles.

Furthermore John the Baptist was a Nazarite, but in I Corinthians 11:14, Paul wrote:"Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
This is a rather odd thing for Paul to have said, considering what the Old Testament teaches about men who take the Nazarite vow:"They must never cut their hair throughout the time of their vow, for they are holy and set apart to the LORD. Until the time of their vow has been fulfilled, they must let their hair grow long." (Numbers 6:5)
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Nazarites (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=N&artid=142):"The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice."
However, some Nazarites took lifelong vows:"A Nazarite for life might cut his too abundant hair once a year, but a Samson Nazarite might not cut his hair under any circumstances."
Samson and Samuel are two examples from the Old Testament of men who were Nazarites for life. In the New Testament, John the Baptist was a Nazarite for life, hence he would have had long hair. And yet, Paul said that it is shameful for a man to have long hair, and that "nature itself" teaches us this. But how exactly does "nature" teach us that it is "shameful" for a man to have long hair? The answer boils down to a pseudo-scientific belief held by the ancient Greeks that long hair would make a man infertile: When Paul tells the church in Corinth that "nature teaches" that it is "degrading" for men to wear their hair long, the apostle to the gentiles is alluding to once-common beliefs about the role of hair in sexual intercourse...Men with long locks would divert too much semen from their scrotum where their pubic hair and testicles have become larger at puberty. Luxurious hair on women serves them well, however, because those long, hollow hairs add to the suction in her body.

"Long feminine hairs assist the uterus in drawing semen upward and inward; masculine testicles, which are connected to the brain by two channels, facilitate the drawing of semen downward and outward," wrote Martin. The favorite Hippocratic test for fertility in women was linked to the belief about the strong suction power of their head of hair.
Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_9_121/ai_n6173721/

It is also belived that Yeshua also took that vow and Paul also when he went into the Temple in Acts

[yhwhschild]

There is no contradiction. The matter is clear in Scripture, and it's a matter of knowledge and conscience. Eating food sacrificed to idols is a sin for those who believe in idols. But for a person who knows in his conscience that the idols are only false and man-made, then the food is only food and eating it isn't a sin. Eating the food isn't a sin when the knowledge is firm in our conscience that an idol is nothing. A person whose faith in Christ isn't yet strong or matured, however, could easily have nagging doubts and thoughts about idols, especially if he's grown up in a culture where sacrifices to idols are common. In that case, if he's not firm within himself that idols are nothing, then he could easily violate his conscience by eating the sacrificial meat.

I mentioned this in another post in this thread - Peter talked about how some of Paul's teachings are very difficult. And they are. In this particular instance, regarding this one particular teaching, God's people are being called to a greater and more mature faith in Christ. But this also includes needing to learn that by our greater faith, we musn't place a stumbling block in the way of those brothers whose own faith is still young and weak. If by eating meat sacrificed to idols we don't violate our own conscience, but we violate the conscience of a weaker brother who sees us eating the meat, then we sin against him and we sin against Christ.

It's a complicated, difficult matter that requires serious, sober contemplation. It also requires our maturity in Christ, which isn't something we can cause to happen by simply snapping our fingers. To toss it around like this, as just fodder for debate, is extremely dangerous. It's also unwise to try to settle such important matters in a mixed group of people where you have unbelievers, false believers, and young believers all trying to argue the matter. Since these teachings are difficult for God's Own people, then how can unbelievers and false believers ever understand them? In that case, it's the young believer who's in immense danger - his weak, but growing, faith could easily be destroyed by the arguments of unbelievers and false believers who are trying to understand something that only God's people have the hope of understanding.

Jesus Christ warned us that this life, in this world, is a spiritual war. And nowhere have I seen such a concentrated effort to destroy people's faith in Christ than in this forum. The worst of the attacks doesn't even come from unbelievers. The devil delivers his hardest attacks through false Christians. Glory be to Christ that He warned us even against this.

Be on your guard!

Rev 2:20 “But I hold against you that you allow that woman Izeḇel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and lead My servants astray to commit whoring and to eat food offered to idols.

I think it is plainly shown as to what Yeshua's opinion on the matter is never mind what you think Paul states. The Torah which is Yahweh's letter to humanity states that the eating of food given to idols is forbidden. Yeshua has to back this up as he states that the words that he speaks are not his but the words of Yahweh. So both of them say no so it doesn't matter what Paul states or what you think he states if the Torah says no then Yahweh means no.

Unless you know the Torah then the letters of Paul will be a stumbling block to those who have no law.

Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Master, Master,ʼ shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of My Father in the heavens.
Mat 7:22 “Many shall say to Me in that day, ‘Master, Master, have we not prophesied in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty works in Your Name?ʼ
Mat 7:23 “And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!ʼ1 Footnote: 1 See v. 15.

[drakul]

Rev 2:20 “But I hold against you that you allow that woman Izeḇel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and lead My servants astray to commit whoring and to eat food offered to idols.

I think it is plainly shown as to what Yeshua's opinion on the matter is never mind what you think Paul states. The Torah which is Yahweh's letter to humanity states that the eating of food given to idols is forbidden. Yeshua has to back this up as he states that the words that he speaks are not his but the words of Yahweh. So both of them say no so it doesn't matter what Paul states or what you think he states if the Torah says no then Yahweh means no.

Unless you know the Torah then the letters of Paul will be a stumbling block to those who have no law.

Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Master, Master,ʼ shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of My Father in the heavens.
Mat 7:22 “Many shall say to Me in that day, ‘Master, Master, have we not prophesied in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty works in Your Name?ʼ
Mat 7:23 “And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!ʼ1 Footnote: 1 See v. 15.

So? shrugs shoulders. Your use of these quotes from Mathew makes no sense to me in this context.

The two major points in my mind about Paul being a false apostle (and this has been discussed for 2,000 years so it's not like Ksalt just brought the idea up yesterday):

1. Paul never discusses or quotes the Master's teachings. Unbelieveable - because Jesus teachings ARE Christianity. Without Jesus' teachings there would be no Christianity.

2. Paul used his influence to force WOMEN OUT of the church, making it into an ALL MALE entity. Jesus held women in high regard and 2 women were his unrecognized apostles - Mary his mother and Mary Magdalene. THEY were at the crucifixion when the other apostles ran away. The two Mary's were the ones who found the empty tomb. The two Marys were the ones who saw the ressurected Jesus. And the two Marys were the ones who told the other apostles that Jesus had ressurected. Ultimately it was Paul's influence that resulted in Mary Magdalene being dismissed as a WHORE by the Vatican. :(

[raphael]

incredulous

bunch religious plebes sitting around in a circle jerk, taking turns stroking each other's egos...
fun with dick and the jain?
hahaha

can one of you religious plebes discuss the proof you have ... as to who the 4 Evangelists were?
I really would love to find out more?
but I cannot...
there is controversy AGAIN :p:p:p:p:p:p, as to whether these 4 fellas ever did write those 4 Gospels.

Any of the folks who spend their lives cut and pasting quotations...know anything about these 4 fellas?
Again their pasts seem to be of an archetypal script, each being associated with one of these four creatures, the man, the eagle, the lion and the bull.

Does the controversy ever end re: bible babel?

Do you know how YOU or anyone like Paul could CREATE a RELIGION?
First you must create a mystery...

>>and then you find some sheeple who are either too scared, too hungry, too busy, too stupid, too gullible, too lost, too comfortable, to seek out the truth that was turned into a mystery.
duh so what kind of conditions does a mystery thrive in?
another duh!

p.s. what were the contributions of the Christian astronomers around 2500 B.C. while the 'Persians' were mapping the heavens?

any idea?
duh, didn't think so.

St. John of the 4 Gospels
which John?
ahhhh
more fucking bullshit controversy...?
does it ever end?
but I should have blind faith and follow the herd of ewe?

duh
duh
no thanks

because there is NO controversy when you realize much of the bible story takes place in outer space.
duh the only noise is due to the plebe being dragged kicking and screaming to the truth.

mesatan
mesanta
or
namaste

[drakul]

Raphael - why do you always say NAMASTE at the end of your posts? You think Hinduism is a religion of peace? 150 million OUTCASTS and you think Hinduism has something over Christianity? You have alot to learn as well. :rolleyes:

[raphael]

Raphael - why do you always say NAMASTE at the end of your posts? You think Hinduism is a religion of peace? 150 million OUTCASTS and you think Hinduism has something over Christianity? You have alot to learn as well. :rolleyes:

Hindus are not the only folks who use namaste.
And another thing about the Hindu that separates him from the JEW, the CHRISTIAN and the MUSLIM.
Their scriptures, called the Rig Vedas are actually HYMNS.
And their songs of life DO NOT TELL THEM TO GO OUT AND COLONIZE the world.
Did the Hindus build ARMADAS?
Duh no Drakul, it is EWE who continue to show his ignorance.
Why
Because that is what a plebe does...it trys to make reality fit his twisted cultured programming.

do you have one of those crosses of persecution, the CRUCIFIX hangin' around yer sheeple neck dude?
does it have 60 million notches on it?
for each of those heathens the church baptised by killing them?
ya ya ya christian plebes always volunteer to be the crucifix river styx guy, help the non-believers cross over to their side?

get lost
not reading my threads any more?
I can tell...you are starting to reBLEAT ignorant nonsense.

why a crucifix waving plebe would ever bring crimes against humanity into the discussions I will never know...

only shows how fucking twisted their reality has become. :p:p:

fine I won't use namaste on a plebe like you...
ya like to twist things around anyway to fit your ignorant beliefs

mesatan

p.s.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/image.php?u=10175&dateline=1253760256

why do you use this as an avatar?
tell me about the symbol
all a EWE could possibly know...and how 'that' belief system has similar truths to the one you believe in.
Tell me the truths you have found between the two...between the symbol you identify with and the ARKetype called jesus.

if jesus is an energy that permeates the universe...show me the jesus in your avatar?

[drakul]

Hindus are not the only folks who use namaste.
And another thing about the Hindu that separates him from the JEW, the CHRISTIAN and the MUSLIM.
Their scriptures, called the Rig Vedas are actually HYMNS.
And their songs of life DO NOT TELL THEM TO GO OUT AND COLONIZE the world.
Did the Hindus build ARMADAS?
Duh no Drakul, it is EWE who continue to show his ignorance.
Why
Because that is what a plebe does...it trys to make reality fit his twisted cultured programming.

do you have one of those crosses of persecution, the CRUCIFIX hangin' around yer sheeple neck dude?
does it have 60 million notches on it?
for each of those heathens the church baptised by killing them?
ya ya ya christian plebes always volunteer to be the crucifix river styx guy, help the non-believers cross over to their side?

get lost
not reading my threads any more?
I can tell...you are starting to reBLEAT ignorant nonsense.

why a crucifix waving plebe would ever bring crimes against humanity into the discussions I will never know...

only shows how fucking twisted their reality has become. :p:p:

fine I won't use namaste on a plebe like you...
ya like to twist things around anyway to fit your ignorant beliefs

mesatan

p.s.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/image.php?u=10175&dateline=1253760256

why do you use this as an avatar?
tell me about the symbol
all a EWE could possibly know...and how 'that' belief system has similar truths to the one you believe in.
Tell me the truths you have found between the two...between the symbol you identify with and the ARKetype called jesus.

if jesus is an energy that permeates the universe...show me the jesus in your avatar?

I took that pic of my avatar when I was in Cambodia a few years ago, I happen to like it. I do practice Buddhist meditation. BUT I am a Christian.

You have alot to learn about Hinduism if you think it's superior to Christianity. Maybe you should try being reborn as an OUTCAST and when you are starving and suffering, (all because of your bad karma in a previous life), see how much compassion the Brahmins have for you.

[raphael]

You have alot to learn about Hinduism if you think it's superior to Christianity.

you are a christian who meditates like the buddha?
whatever dude...whatever...so you just make shit up as you go along then?
start judaism and become a jew dude....a sheeple like ewe would get extra holy-days to pray and go shopping for buddha trinkets.

maybe you should find the quote where I state exactly that?
christians are so fucking quick to judge...their perspectives are so twisted that their projections serve as projections of them!!!
hahahahahaha

betcha can not find where I say the HINDU caste system is better than the dog eat dog rich man poor man christian/jews/muslims fighting for the top, system?
where did I say that?
find the quote ya lying little christian plebe who meditates like a buddha?

I have traveled in both India and the USA...
I felt safer in India where 90% are probably poorer than me, than I do in the United States where I would imagine my economic status would place me in the middle class.

Hindu believe in KARMA, so though their caste system puts hundreds of millions into desparate situations...they still do not act desperately.

Unlike the judeao/christians who are wealthy yet act desparate. :p:p
read more of my wisdom drakul....you are clearly in need of having your silly hard drive wiped clean with a stroke of my creators magic MAGNETIC wand.
Any idea what my magic wand does to a sheeple brain like your IGNORANT one dude, stuck in the dark ages?

My creator uses a magic wand to induce a MAGNETIC PULSE to induce an electro-magnetic flip flop of the EM spectrum, a flipping of the 'S' serpentine waveforms should get all the inane judea/christians sounding quite inSane once the 'S' waveform arrives and the 'S' gets added to their inane rants.

The build up to 2012 is evidence enough...the baa baa baa baa sky is falling has begun....

This magnetic pulse should knock out the satellites and wake the fuckin' blithering babbling bible rebleaters up with some new serpentine spirally twirly swirly thoughts.

namaste

[snoopsnuffleopagus]

This would seem somewhat unlikely considering that Paul never once so much as mentioned John's name or even alluded to him in any of his epistles.

Yes, but you must not be aware of The Apostle Shauls citations of John the Baptist in Acts, consider yourself informed.

Act 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.


Act 13:25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not [he]. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of [his] feet I am not worthy to loose.

http://98.131.162.170//tynbul/library/TynBull_1991_42_2_04_Michaels_Paul_JohnBapt.pdf

Yet Paul’s quotation of the Baptist in Acts 13:25 is not
dependent on Luke, or any other known Gospel. It agrees with
John 1:26-27 against the synoptics in making no mention of ‘the
Mightier One’, in using ἄξιος rather than ἱκανός for ‘worthy’, and
in using the singular ὑπόδημα, ‘sandal’, instead of the plural form
common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke.4 It agrees with Matthew
against Mark, Luke, and John in omitting τὸν ἱμάντα, ‘the thong’
(Mark and Luke have ‘the thong of his sandals’, while John’s
Gospel has ‘the thong of whose sandal’). Yet Paul’s citation has
nothing else in common with Matthew’s unique expression, ‘whose
sandals I am unworthy to carry’. It can only be regarded as a
witness in its own right to the words of John the Baptist.5


Act 19:1 ¶ And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,


Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.


Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.


Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Paul’s
indebtedness to John in the Book of Acts is largely confined to a
strong emphasis on repentance, which Paul equates with faith in
Jesus, and (in one instance) the works that repentance produces.


IV. John the Baptist and the Letters of Paul.

The case does not look promising on the face of it. Paul in his
letters is even less a baptizer than Paul in the Book of Acts. ‘I am
thankful’, he tells the Corinthians, ‘that I baptised none of you
except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say you were
baptised in my name. . .for Christ did not send me to baptize, but to
preach the gospel’ (1 Cor. 1:14-15, 17). The terms ‘repent’ and..........................Luke has preserved some authentic echoes of Paul’s
missionary preaching, including his citation and interpretation of
John the Baptist, as well as his self-assessment in language
reminiscent of John’s. If so, it is not so surprising to find similar
phenomena, at least occasionally, in his letters.
No one will argue that John the Baptist was the major
influence on Paul’s life and thought. Paul’s language is saturated
with the reality of the Holy Spirit and the risen Christ in a way that
John the Baptist’s never could have been. Yet John seems to have
been for Paul a precedent, his only role model other than Jesus
himself for the preaching of ‘eschatological repentance’ to Israel
and the Gentiles. He was a more appropriate role model than Jesus
precisely because he was not Jesus, but (like Paul) someone who
called people to believe in Jesus (Acts 19:4). Paul’s selfidentification
with John the Baptist may have served as a check
against mysticism, and a protection against the danger of
identifying his own mind and consciousness too closely with that
of Jesus (cf., e.g., Gal. 2:20a, ‘I no longer live, but Christ lives in
me’). If Jesus was for Paul the Risen One, he was also still the
Coming One, even as he had been for John. If the Spirit
represented for Paul the ‘already’ of Christian experience, John and
his remembered words may have represented the ‘not yet’, and the
continuing need to ‘do works worthy of repentance’ and to ‘escape
260 TYNDALE BULLETIN 42.2 (1991)
the wrath to come’. To claim that John the Baptist is the key to
understanding the mind of Paul is to claim far too much, but there
is evidence at least to support the more modest conclusion that the
two are by no means an odd couple.

If you liked that, you will love this!! :)

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/TynBul/Library/TynBull_1961_07_04_Fairhurst_HellenisticHebrews.pd f

Hellenistic Influence in the Epistle to the
Hebrews'


WHEN WE REFER to Hellenistic influence in this connection I
assume that we have in mind primarily the influence which
derived from Plato. This had obviously been through various
phases by the time this epistle was written, and the most likely
channel of its communication would have been through the
Alexandrian scholar Philo, who died about 50 A.D. He was a
great exegete of the Old Testament, but his greatness was somewhat
qualified by his desire to find in it a complete philosophical
system equal to that of the Greeks. He was a great apologist,
but had many of the weaknesses of those who indulge in special
pleading. Another possible source of Greek influence could have
been the Greek mystery cults, but this is always difficult to
assess as we lack accurate documentation.......


And especially these!!:)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/muddleplatonismx1.html

Questions on Paul, Jesus, and Middle Platonism

A MUST read for Christians and Pagans/Heathens

DidThe Apostle Shaul
Do Away With Yahweh's Law?

A MUST read for Christians and Pagans/Heathens

http://www.yahweh.com/PWMags/DefaultPW12_2004.htm

In Search Of The True Savior

kasalt, you have never accurately surveyed/mapped: Yahweh http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/What%20is%20an%20Elohim.pdf

Yahshua haMessiah, the Torah or any aspect of the Book of Yahweh/Bible.

I have had you in a Petrie Dish under the Microscope for 2 years, at your insistence.

You are a pagan countermissionary, your tool of trade is deceit, when one embraces deceit, they forfeit truth, when you forfeit truth, you forfeit love, and embrace hate, the companion of deceit.

What ever spiritual path you embrace, you have proven it has a paucity of merit.

you are still shittin' like a puppy.

lol


Kind Regards

[kasalt]

Yes, but you must not be aware of The Apostle Shauls citations of John the Baptist in Acts, consider yourself informed.


You are not aware of what I am aware of. I am well aware of Paul's "citations of John the Baptist in Acts", but Paul did not write the book of Acts. Paul, as he is described in the book of Acts, is very different from Paul as he presents himself in his epistles. Consider yourself informed.

[raphael]

If you liked that, you will love this!!



If you liked that, you will love this!!

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/amiens-cathedral/images/amiens-10.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Nazi_Swastika.svg/140px-Nazi_Swastika.svg.pnghttp://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/kachina2012/AmiensCathedralheadofJohntheBaptist.jpghttp://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/kachina2012/SantaCantalinaMandala.jpg

ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE IDENTICAL

BLACK CROSS
WHITE CIRCLE
RED BACKGROUND

Fact: the Knights Templar had a reverence for St. John the Baptist.
Fact: the symbolic head of St. John has been placed in a shrine in Amiens Cathedral
Fact: the image on the far right came from Peru, found in an Roman Catholic monastery.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/kachina2012/Garden%20Photos/ArchdukeEugenreceivesaTeutonicKn-3.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Nazi_Swastika.svg/140px-Nazi_Swastika.svg.png

Fact: above we see the Teutonic Knights colors/flag...circa 1914...
Hitler was still to make the claim he invented the color scheme of this flag belonging to an order that answered to the Vatican.
Hitler disbanded the Knights Teutonic in 1938, along with chasing the Freemason's out of Germany.
Not so sure Adolf about your claims.
Fact: the colors of heraldry match up through SpaceTime.

http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/st-john-the-baptist-knights-templar-were-aeon-pagan-nazis/
Were the Freemasons and St. John the Baptist studying Arabic Nazi Razi alchemy?

fact: 2012 the Vatican and the sheeple get a long overdue shearing of their woolly beliefs.

namaste

[yhwhschild]

So? shrugs shoulders. Your use of these quotes from Mathew makes no sense to me in this context.

The two major points in my mind about Paul being a false apostle (and this has been discussed for 2,000 years so it's not like Ksalt just brought the idea up yesterday):

1. Paul never discusses or quotes the Master's teachings. Unbelieveable - because Jesus teachings ARE Christianity. Without Jesus' teachings there would be no Christianity.

2. Paul used his influence to force WOMEN OUT of the church, making it into an ALL MALE entity. Jesus held women in high regard and 2 women were his unrecognized apostles - Mary his mother and Mary Magdalene. THEY were at the crucifixion when the other apostles ran away. The two Mary's were the ones who found the empty tomb. The two Marys were the ones who saw the ressurected Jesus. And the two Marys were the ones who told the other apostles that Jesus had ressurected. Ultimately it was Paul's influence that resulted in Mary Magdalene being dismissed as a WHORE by the Vatican. :(

The point being is that the Torah states that eating food given to idols is breaking the Torah. Anyone intentially breaking the Torah or stating that it is of no effect is the Lawless ones refered to in Matthew.

Also my post wasn't directed at you so of course you don't understand

[1964]

Rev 2:20 “But I hold against you that you allow that woman Izeḇel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and lead My servants astray to commit whoring and to eat food offered to idols.

I think it is plainly shown as to what Yeshua's opinion on the matter is never mind what you think Paul states. The Torah which is Yahweh's letter to humanity states that the eating of food given to idols is forbidden. Yeshua has to back this up as he states that the words that he speaks are not his but the words of Yahweh. So both of them say no so it doesn't matter what Paul states or what you think he states if the Torah says no then Yahweh means no.

Unless you know the Torah then the letters of Paul will be a stumbling block to those who have no law.

Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Master, Master,ʼ shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of My Father in the heavens.
Mat 7:22 “Many shall say to Me in that day, ‘Master, Master, have we not prophesied in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty works in Your Name?ʼ
Mat 7:23 “And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!ʼ1 Footnote: 1 See v. 15.

Christ is the very embodiement of Truth. We cannot honor God apart from Truth. Now someone asked, in an earlier post, about the strangulation of animals, and the blood of animals - how God has commanded His people not to eat these things. The poster likened these things to foods that have been sacrificed to idols. But herein lies the crucial difference that Paul is trying to teach:

On the matter of foods sacrificed to idols, it can be reasoned that idols are nothing, so that the foods sacrificed to them is still only food. The man who believes this is only telling himself the truth. But now in the matters of strangulation and blood, it can never be reasoned that strangulation isn't strangulation; and that blood isn't blood. In order to believe these things, a man would have to lie to himself and to others.

When I tell you that idols are nothing, am I lying to you? No. When I tell you idols are man-made, and not gods, am I lying to you? No. When I tell you that idols have no power to transform food into something other than food, is that the truth? Yes, it is. And since both idols and furniture are only man-made objects, then why are idols offensive to God and not chairs? Idols are offensive to God not because of the object itself - the object is nothing. It's the worship of these objects, as though they are gods, that's offensive. A man could just as easily worship a chair, and it would be equally offensive. Not because a chair has the power to offend, but because man has the power to offend.

See, idols have no power to transform food anymore than a chair does. Where the power lies to transform the food is in your mind. And if your mind transforms the food that's been sacrificed to idols into something that's filthy, then you honor God by obeying your conscience and refusing to eat such foods. Likewise, if no such transformation occurs in my mind because I am so firmly convinced that idols are mere nothingness, then I too honor God when I obey my conscience and eat the food knowing it's only food.

I would agree with you if I saw that Paul's teachings were in contradiction to God's Word. But I do understand Paul's teachings, and I see them as being in such harmony with God's Word that they are the Word of God.

Here is Hebrews 5:12-14

"In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."

It was 5 years ago that Jesus Christ appeared to me in a vision. Prior to the vision, I had done what so many others do - I had tried to analyze and dissect God. But following the vision, I saw how my mind could not even contain Him. In all my ignorance and insolence, I had tried to analyze that which I could not even fathom until, and unless, God revealed it to me. Now I know, and I have learned - I can talk about those things that Christ has revealed to me, and nothing more. I can know nothing more than this.

The knowledge of God is endless, and His wisdom is far above man's wisdom. Once we truly know this about God, then we know it's impossible for us, of our own volition, to fathom all the knowledge and wisdom of God. We're simply not capable. And if we can humbly accept this about ourselves, we stop viewing all of Scripture as though it's only a one grade lesson to be learned. We start to understand the Word of God in a more truthful light - which is that layers upon layers of the knowledge and wisdom of God are hidden in the Scriptures, to be revealed to us on a very individual and personal basis as we grow and mature in our faith in Christ.

This is what Paul is calling us to, to continuously mature and grow in our faith in Jesus Christ - while simultaneously presenting us with real to life challenges of faith. How could such a calling come from a false apostle? To denounce Paul as a false apostle is to discourage young believers from growing in their faith in Christ. And isn't *that* the true aim of a false apostle? To keep God's people feeding only on milk, so that their faith in Christ might never mature and then perhaps one day be shipwrecked?

You quoted Revelation 2:20, "But I hold against you that you allow that woman Izebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and lead My servants astray to commit whoring and to eat food offered to idols."

It's fascinating that the word "whoring" is mentioned in this verse, along with the mentioning of foods sacrificed to idols. The Roman Catholic church is identified in the Book of Revelation as a spiritual *whore*. I was originally raised in the Roman Catholic church. There are some of God's people who are still lost inside this whore, trying to find their way out. But until they heed God's call to come out of her, what are they doing in the meantime? In the meantime, some of God's Own people are right now being led to eat food and drink wine that's being offered to them in the name of so many idols. It's not that the people are eating the food and drinking the wine that's offensive and abominable - food is only food, and wine is only wine. It's the fact that right now, some of God's people are still deceived and believe that these Catholic idols *are* gods. In their minds, these idols have power to transform food and wine into something 'holy'. *That* is what's offensive and abominable = Revelation 2:20 = Paul's teaching on eating foods offered to idols.

I hate this entire debate. The reason I hate it is that to the detriment of any of God's people who might be following this debate, the greater meaning of Paul's teaching has been completely obscured. And that is that God's people need to guard their faith in Christ, ensuring that their faith in Christ is continuouly growing and maturing. Otherwise, things that stagnate and never grow tend to die!

[1964]

I tend to agree with you on this,though Iam not a Bible scholar nor a historian

Saul of Tarsus was a pharisee who never met Jesus apart from his claim to have seen him in a vision.

I can only say that i believe in Christ,as far as Saul is concerned im not prepared to accept him over and above James brother of Jesus,how come Saul prvailed while James sank into obscurity ?

Our relationship with Christ should be a continuously growing relationship, so that we allow the Word of God to correct us when we see that we're in error. If we refuse God's correction, then it's impossible for us to grow. I failed miserably at this for so many years, until I saw how it had been a test of my love for Christ and my love for the truth. I'm telling you this, on a very personal note, so that you might be more welcoming of correction than I was, by the Word of God. It's an awesome, awesome gift to be in a truly growing and maturing relationship with the Son of God - I hope you'll accept it as a gift.

Your remark about James, versus Paul, reminded me of the following verses in Scripture:

Mark 3:31-35

"Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call Him. A crowd was sitting around Him, and they told Him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for You." "Who are my mother and my brothers?" He asked. Then He looked at those seated in a circle around Him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Christ is revealing to us in these verses a deeper knowledge about God's family. God's family isn't born of the flesh, but of the Holy Spirit of God. So Christ's family aren't those people who were born of the same flesh as Him, but instead, they are the people who are born of the same Spirit that Christ is. I don't believe that Paul is a false apostle. But it sounds like you're still debating the matter within yourself. All I want to offer up to you is that while you debate it within yourself, don't debate it for the reason that you gave, since according to Christ Himself it's a false reason. Christ doesn't give anyone credibility for being a brother of Christ in the flesh, and we musn't either.

[phildee3]

God's family isn't born of the flesh, but of the Holy Spirit of God. So Christ's family aren't those people who were born of the same flesh as Him, but instead, they are the people who are born of the same Spirit that Christ is. I don't believe that Paul is a false apostle. But it sounds like you're still debating the matter within yourself. All I want to offer up to you is that while you debate it within yourself, don't debate it for the reason that you gave, since according to Christ Himself it's a false reason. Christ doesn't give anyone credibility for being a brother of Christ in the flesh, and we musn't either.



This is true, but you're overlooking the family of those who have received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands within the apostolic succession.

These are the twelve that Jesus laid hands on (John 20:22) and their successors.
Since Paul received the HS directly, he had no need to receive it via the apostolic succession and didn't, for to do so would bring into question the validity of his experience.


"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."


Can one receive the HS directly?
I say "yes."

Did Paul? - I don't know,
and we can never know who is a true, "direct recipient" and who is not.

[raphael]

Can I make a request please to change the title of this thread?

Dumb and Dumber diScuSS The conspiracy of "Saint Paul"

The middle path?
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058605431&postcount=640
Here is what I am up to when not discussing (hahaha) the OBVIOUS with the IGNORANT religious plebes, most of whom cannot step out of or find their way outta their teeny weeny puny little boxes they have put themselves into...all they got left is hope...that their box is not being carried out to the curb on recycling day.

namaste

[drakul]

The point being is that the Torah states that eating food given to idols is breaking the Torah. Anyone intentially breaking the Torah or stating that it is of no effect is the Lawless ones refered to in Matthew.

Also my post wasn't directed at you so of course you don't understand

Oh, why didn't you send your intended a PM then? This is a FORUM.

If the `Torah' meaning the Jewish Bible states that no one can eat food given to idols - what did the Jews do with the THOUSANDS of animals they would butcher in that slaughter house called a synagogue during Passover?

You mean the Jewish Pharisees could eat that meat because the victim was slaughtered in the name of their `God' but not in front of an idol? That's the difference? Jesus did not like it, and he made that clear - `You have made my father's house into a den of thieves' (in Greek - murderers). They had him up on the cross the next day.

[raphael]

This is true, but you're overlooking the family of those who have received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands within the apostolic succession.

These are the twelve that Jesus laid hands on (John 20:22) and their successors.
Since Paul received the HS directly, he had no need to receive it via the apostolic succession and didn't, for to do so would bring into question the validity of his experience.

Can one receive the HS directly?
I say "yes."

Did Paul? - I don't know,
and we can never know who is a true, "direct recipient" and who is not.

hahahahaha

laying of the hands...?

mi nickname in high school was 'wonderhands'

fuck Paul and Jesus ask me...about the HS.
yes you can feel the HS daily...
you can be zapped like I wuz on that fine september morning... :D
I remember like it was just yesterday...I asked the right question...
The answer was accompanied by the most intense rush/vibration/goosebump :eek: that electrified me from the crown to the extremeties...
zzzzzzzzzz
All I could do afterward was ask...(at age 47) WTF was that?????

The intuition switch had been found...the TRUTH beacon that sends me a vibe when I hit the bullseye.

we can never know who is a true, "direct recipient" and who is not

hahahaha
a couple of hours left alone with me in a room, forced to watch me and EWE would know if I had been struck...
I guarantee it...

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/theater/images/clockwork_big.jpg

mesatan
or
namaste

[clachan]

Can I make a request please to change the title of this thread?

Dumb and Dumber diScuSS The conspiracy of "Saint Paul"

The middle path?
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058605431&postcount=640
Here is what I am up to when not discussing (hahaha) the OBVIOUS with the IGNORANT religious plebes, most of whom cannot step out of or find their way outta their teeny weeny puny little boxes they have put themselves into...all they got left is hope...that their box is not being carried out to the curb on recycling day.

namaste

No !! you cannot make a request.
Meditate on this instead:

The man who is happy only when he hates will one day be tutored by having to experience the results of his own destructive feelings !!

Hasta la visa baby !

[raphael]

No !! you cannot make a request.
Meditate on this instead:

The man who is happy only when he hates will one day be tutored by having to experience the results of his own destructive feelings !!

Hasta la visa baby !

it seems your meSSage meant to maSSage is filled with hate eh baby!

hahaha
The ignorant plebe who cannot understand marko rodin, nassim haramein, precession of the equinoxes etc...has spoken?
He went from being a wiccan to a christian plebe who is still in the dark ages...
:p:p

ya know what EWE IGNORANT lower christian life form...it is EWE and your bible that are guranteed to make a return appearance, to come back to continue battling with the muslims and jews of course, ya JC wanker.

That is why satan iSSued the fucking herd a bible.
duh

I have asked any of the IGNORANT plebes to STEP FORWARD and discuss the 4 Gospels/4 Evangelists, however there are no takers..
only cheap shots directed toward the REAL meSSenger, by the folks who follow the bible that I want to discuss.

THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR WHO THE ASSHOLES ARE ON THIS THREAD?
THOSE THAT ONLY COME TO PREACH ALL THEY KNOW, never willing to learn something new?
ONLY HERE TO DEFEND their pathetic 'kill kill kill' mantra that has resonated for 2000 years?

mesatan
or
namaste

p.s.
I promise to use angelic language if any of the fuckin' IGNORANT plebes rises up to the challenge?
promise...I will
so which of the IGNORANT sheeple wants to be sacrificed on Raphael's altar of TRUTH?
That will BE the result...you and your silly nilly belief will be made to look rather false and pathetic and much much much darker than EWE ever imagined....

[kasalt]

Now someone asked, in an earlier post, about the strangulation of animals, and the blood of animals - how God has commanded His people not to eat these things. The poster likened these things to foods that have been sacrificed to idols. But herein lies the crucial difference that Paul is trying to teach:

On the matter of foods sacrificed to idols, it can be reasoned that idols are nothing, so that the foods sacrificed to them is still only food.

But you haven't answered the question!

Forget food sacrificed to idols for a minute.

Do you believe that it is sinful for Christians to eat the meat of strangled animals, or animal blood, as per Acts 15:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:29&version=NIV)?

[clachan]

But you haven't answered the question!

Forget food sacrificed to idols for a minute.

Do you believe that it is sinful for Christians to eat the meat of strangled animals, or animal blood, as per Acts 15:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:29&version=NIV)?

It is not what goes into a persons mouth,its what comes out......

Did Jesus say that ?

[clachan]

Our relationship with Christ should be a continuously growing relationship, so that we allow the Word of God to correct us when we see that we're in error. If we refuse God's correction, then it's impossible for us to grow. I failed miserably at this for so many years, until I saw how it had been a test of my love for Christ and my love for the truth. I'm telling you this, on a very personal note, so that you might be more welcoming of correction than I was, by the Word of God. It's an awesome, awesome gift to be in a truly growing and maturing relationship with the Son of God - I hope you'll accept it as a gift.

Your remark about James, versus Paul, reminded me of the following verses in Scripture:

Mark 3:31-35

"Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call Him. A crowd was sitting around Him, and they told Him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for You." "Who are my mother and my brothers?" He asked. Then He looked at those seated in a circle around Him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

Christ is revealing to us in these verses a deeper knowledge about God's family. God's family isn't born of the flesh, but of the Holy Spirit of God. So Christ's family aren't those people who were born of the same flesh as Him, but instead, they are the people who are born of the same Spirit that Christ is. I don't believe that Paul is a false apostle. But it sounds like you're still debating the matter within yourself. All I want to offer up to you is that while you debate it within yourself, don't debate it for the reason that you gave, since according to Christ Himself it's a false reason. Christ doesn't give anyone credibility for being a brother of Christ in the flesh, and we musn't either.

Thankyou for your reply,I have only recently considered this question hanging over Paul,and that was when i "accidently" came across some info when i was looking for something on an unrelated issue.Iam aware that the family of Christ is not of flesh and blood,it,d be a very small family if it was.
It is not just the fact that James and Co were virtually side lined when Paul appeared on the scene,but a combination of compelling arguments which have been raised on this thread and else where.
Having considered this info with an open mind i can say that it has not even so much as put a shadow of a doubt in my mind regards Christ,in fact i see it as no big deal really.So what,Paul "may" be a false apostle.
The fact is that we cannot know for sure,but what we can say is this;Christ warned against false apostles,Paul arrived AFTERWARDS,so he as well as anyone else must be given consideration.Todays Church is a million miles away from Christ and the rot set in somewhere in the early days.
The division started with someone somewhere.
Regards correction i must thank you for your kind consideration,I mean that sincerly,but my faith is beyond doubt and so there,s no possibility of my wondering off.
Can i offer you a thought of my own ?....None of us are infallible or not prone to deception,none of us,the minute we assume that we are, we enter a trap of our own design.
You were right to say that truth is in Christ,what more do we need ?


Why must i just debate it within myself ??
Iam not worried about setting myself apart from the rest of you simple because of fear of upsetting the apple cart.

Yes,I accept the free gift from Christ,but i must say with hand on heart that it is not the free gift that compels me to believe in him.I do not expect anything back at all,when i first came to Christ it was because i sensed his truth and could not fault him.

Here.s a simple question thats always bugged me;why are there 66 books in the Bible ? It is not by coincidence,thats for sure.

If what i say here is a test of anyones faith then thats good.
If your faith is real then nothing written here or elsewhere will put one dent in it.

[raphael]

It is not what goes into a persons mouth,its what comes out......

Did Jesus say that ?

yes he did
he was 'quoted'
gospel of thomas

Digesting 4 gospels + gnoSiS taking the '5th' or should I say adding the 5th ammendment, the gospel of thomas would do a plebe like you real good.

amen

[clachan]

yes he did
he was 'quoted'
gospel of thomas

Digesting 4 gospels + gnoSiS taking the '5th' or should I say adding the 5th ammendment, the gospel of thomas would do a plebe like you real good.

amen

O shut up Ralph ! Im fed up with your cheeks !
It does not matter weather he said it or not,its true.

[kasalt]

It is not what goes into a persons mouth,its what comes out......

Did Jesus say that ?

Matthew 11:17-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:17-20&version=KJV)

[raphael]

Matthew 11:17-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:17-20&version=KJV)


Gospel of Thomas
saying #14

I love this, this is beautiful...too bad the 4 Gospel plebes can't enjoy it....


14) Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin
for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if
you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits. When you go into
any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you,
eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them.
For what goes into your mouth will not defile you, but that which
issues from your mouth - it is that which will defile you."

Is typing text the same as saying it?
Yes...
Good

mesatan

[tannah]

Matthew 11:17-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:17-20&version=KJV)

19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

I agree with that as it is so self evident. Yet this is not even half the story of the Heart. Out of the heart come qualities to replace the above, good thoughts, compassion, faithfulness, generosity. Replacing isn't quite the right word, because we don't lose access to either of the two proclivities. But I think only one of the two proclivities of heart leads to inner transformation.

[1964]

This is true, but you're overlooking the family of those who have received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands within the apostolic succession.

These are the twelve that Jesus laid hands on (John 20:22) and their successors.
Since Paul received the HS directly, he had no need to receive it via the apostolic succession and didn't, for to do so would bring into question the validity of his experience.


"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."


Can one receive the HS directly?
I say "yes."

Did Paul? - I don't know,
and we can never know who is a true, "direct recipient" and who is not.

Hi phildee,

I'm not sure what you mean by saying there's a direct, and then an indirect way of receiving the Holy Spirit. Every person who has been born again in Christ, since Christ's first coming, has received the Holy Spirit of God - all down throughout time, right up to today, and into the future (for those who have yet to repent, and be born again). The gift of the Holy Spirit isn't reserved for Christ's apostles alone; or for one particular group of people in God's family. Rather, the Holy Spirit is a gift that's promised to all of God's people, who are truly in Christ.

You, yourself, did you not receive the Holy Spirit of God when you repented of your sins, and were born again in Christ Jesus?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is you're saying ..... ?

[1964]

But you haven't answered the question!

Forget food sacrificed to idols for a minute.

Do you believe that it is sinful for Christians to eat the meat of strangled animals, or animal blood, as per Acts 15:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:29&version=NIV)?

Hi kasalt,

I thought I'd answered the question in that post you quoted from. Before I answer again, there's something I need to know. Throughout this entire debate, I haven't read anywhere what it is exactly that you do believe. What I mean is, are you a follower of Jesus Christ?

[1964]

It is not what goes into a persons mouth,its what comes out......

Did Jesus say that ?

Hi clachan,

Yes, you're right. Jesus did say that. Here are the verses you're referring to.

Matthew 15:10-13

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?" He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

[phildee3]

Hi phildee,

I'm not sure what you mean by saying there's a direct, and then an indirect way of receiving the Holy Spirit. Every person who has been born again in Christ, since Christ's first coming, has received the Holy Spirit of God - all down throughout time, right up to today, and into the future (for those who have yet to repent, and be born again). The gift of the Holy Spirit isn't reserved for Christ's apostles alone; or for one particular group of people in God's family. Rather, the Holy Spirit is a gift that's promised to all of God's people, who are truly in Christ.

You, yourself, did you not receive the Holy Spirit of God when you repented of your sins, and were born again in Christ Jesus?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is you're saying ..... ?



Well you must have missed it when I said:
Can one receive the HS directly? I say "yes."

I think you should read my post again.
I don't think I can say it any clearer.
I didn't say that the gift of the Holy Spirit was "reserved for Christ's apostles alone" but it is for them and their successors as well.

[kasalt]

Hi kasalt,

I thought I'd answered the question in that post you quoted from.

Oh yes, I see your reply now. You stated:
"On the matter of foods sacrificed to idols, it can be reasoned that idols are nothing, so that the foods sacrificed to them is still only food. The man who believes this is only telling himself the truth. But now in the matters of strangulation and blood, it can never be reasoned that strangulation isn't strangulation; and that blood isn't blood. In order to believe these things, a man would have to lie to himself and to others."
So it appears to me that you are agreeing with the prohibition against consuming blood and the meat of strangled animals found in Acts 15:29.

Since the issue has been brought up, I am wondering, how do you reconcile those food prohibitions with the statement of Jesus in found in Matthew 11:17-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:17-20&version=KJV), that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out? After all, meat is meat, so what difference does it make how the animal was slaughtered?

I will answer your other question presently....

[1964]

Oh yes, I see your reply now. You stated:
"On the matter of foods sacrificed to idols, it can be reasoned that idols are nothing, so that the foods sacrificed to them is still only food. The man who believes this is only telling himself the truth. But now in the matters of strangulation and blood, it can never be reasoned that strangulation isn't strangulation; and that blood isn't blood. In order to believe these things, a man would have to lie to himself and to others."
So it appears to me that you are agreeing with the prohibition against consuming blood and the meat of strangled animals found in Acts 15:29.

Since the issue has been brought up, I am wondering, how do you reconcile those food prohibitions with the statement of Jesus in found in Matthew 11:17-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2015:17-20&version=KJV), that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out? After all, meat is meat, so what difference does it make how the animal was slaughtered?

I will answer your other question presently....

First off, we can't depart from the context of the question - the question is about the food that God has provided for man to eat. In other words, when Christ says that it's not what goes into a man that defiles the man, but what comes out of him instead, Christ is not saying that people should go about swallowing just anything. Christ is talking about food. For example, it would be unreasonable to interpret Jesus' Words as meaning that you can have a box of nails for dinner (and then wonder afterwards why you ended up in the hospital emergency room).

So God provided man with proper food to eat, including the meat of animals which is also food. But the blood of an animal isn't food, no more than nails are food. Here, God has revealed a mystery to us - that the very life of man, and animals, is in their blood (Genesis 9).

The mysteries, the knowledge, and the wisdom of God are truly deep and far beyond our ability to comprehend them unless He reveals them to us. So as best as you can fathom it, when you eat/drink the blood of an animal, you're no longer eating the proper food that God provided for you - you are now eating the very life of the animal itself. And animals that are strangled, their blood remains in them. This is why Jewish law dictates that an animal that's to be eaten cannot be strangled to death. It must be properly slaughtered with a cut to the throat, so that the blood can drain from the animal.

I wish you would have answered my question. It's a simple yes, or no answer. I'm not sure why you would have hesitated. Are you a follower of Jesus Christ? I'll check back to see what your answer is.

[1964]

Well you must have missed it when I said:
Can one receive the HS directly? I say "yes."

I think you should read my post again.
I don't think I can say it any clearer.
I didn't say that the gift of the Holy Spirit was "reserved for Christ's apostles alone" but it is for them and their successors as well.

I think I just figured out why we're misunderstanding each other. You seem to be talking about Catholic doctrines, which I don't believe in and denounced many years ago. It's the Roman Catholic church that teaches the doctrine of papal, apostolic succession - and that only the leaders of their church inherit the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This is a false doctrine, and a perversion of God's Word. God's Word is very clear, that *all* those who repent of their sins and are born again in Jesus Christ receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This is why I wondered how you could be a follower of Christ, and yet speak of yourself as though you don't have the Holy Spirit of God living in you. Now I think maybe I understand why. I think maybe you're quoting from Catholic doctrines, as opposed to quoting from the Word of God.

Edit: Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

[phildee3]

I think I just figured out why we're misunderstanding each other.
You seem to be talking about Catholic doctrines,



You think wrong!

The real reason is that you claim to be inclusive but are actually exclusive (read James 5:12b).
You have rejected 2000 years of traditional Christianity which embraces many denominations for the sake of one new one which was founded by criminal, Zionist buisinessmen after they got out of prison!



...the Roman Catholic church that teaches the doctrine of papal, apostolic succession - and that only the leaders of their church inherit the gift of the Holy Spirit.



Very wrong!

The apostolic succession has nothing to do with the pope - it is a succession of bishops.
(The papal succession is exclusively Roman and has no scriptural, or spiritual, foundation - being a strictly political office).

The larger church, which includes the (imperfect) RCs does not hold that "only the leaders of their church inherit the gift of the Holy Spirit" - just that one must be a bishop to pass it on in the form of laying on of hands.
It accepts Paul's receiving of the HS directly (on the road to Emmaus) and that it can, and does, happen to others.



I think maybe you're quoting from Catholic doctrines, as opposed to quoting from the Word of God.

Edit: Please do correct me if I'm wrong.



You're wrong.

[raphael]

Hi clachan,

Yes, you're right. Jesus did say that. Here are the verses you're referring to.



ya sure he did

and dawkins sez you are a monkey's uncle...
dawkins is being kind.
I only see herds of sheeple and seegullibles ON BOTH sides of the iSSueS ...:p:p:p:p

BTW I do not agree with dawkins either....
HE is plainly a science plebe...who believes in another batch of FIBs, and HE does not even know it.
But without the smart/stupid human doings who have forgotten how to be balanced human beings, without these paradoxical idiot/genius' how would prophecy ever manage to manifest without them?

We need them!!!!

mesatan

[yhwhschild]

Christ is the very embodiement of Truth. We cannot honor God apart from Truth. Now someone asked, in an earlier post, about the strangulation of animals, and the blood of animals - how God has commanded His people not to eat these things. The poster likened these things to foods that have been sacrificed to idols. But herein lies the crucial difference that Paul is trying to teach:

On the matter of foods sacrificed to idols, it can be reasoned that idols are nothing, so that the foods sacrificed to them is still only food. The man who believes this is only telling himself the truth. But now in the matters of strangulation and blood, it can never be reasoned that strangulation isn't strangulation; and that blood isn't blood. In order to believe these things, a man would have to lie to himself and to others.

When I tell you that idols are nothing, am I lying to you? No. When I tell you idols are man-made, and not gods, am I lying to you? No. When I tell you that idols have no power to transform food into something other than food, is that the truth? Yes, it is. And since both idols and furniture are only man-made objects, then why are idols offensive to God and not chairs? Idols are offensive to God not because of the object itself - the object is nothing. It's the worship of these objects, as though they are gods, that's offensive. A man could just as easily worship a chair, and it would be equally offensive. Not because a chair has the power to offend, but because man has the power to offend.

See, idols have no power to transform food anymore than a chair does. Where the power lies to transform the food is in your mind. And if your mind transforms the food that's been sacrificed to idols into something that's filthy, then you honor God by obeying your conscience and refusing to eat such foods. Likewise, if no such transformation occurs in my mind because I am so firmly convinced that idols are mere nothingness, then I too honor God when I obey my conscience and eat the food knowing it's only food.

I would agree with you if I saw that Paul's teachings were in contradiction to God's Word. But I do understand Paul's teachings, and I see them as being in such harmony with God's Word that they are the Word of God.

Here is Hebrews 5:12-14

"In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."

It was 5 years ago that Jesus Christ appeared to me in a vision. Prior to the vision, I had done what so many others do - I had tried to analyze and dissect God. But following the vision, I saw how my mind could not even contain Him. In all my ignorance and insolence, I had tried to analyze that which I could not even fathom until, and unless, God revealed it to me. Now I know, and I have learned - I can talk about those things that Christ has revealed to me, and nothing more. I can know nothing more than this.

The knowledge of God is endless, and His wisdom is far above man's wisdom. Once we truly know this about God, then we know it's impossible for us, of our own volition, to fathom all the knowledge and wisdom of God. We're simply not capable. And if we can humbly accept this about ourselves, we stop viewing all of Scripture as though it's only a one grade lesson to be learned. We start to understand the Word of God in a more truthful light - which is that layers upon layers of the knowledge and wisdom of God are hidden in the Scriptures, to be revealed to us on a very individual and personal basis as we grow and mature in our faith in Christ.

This is what Paul is calling us to, to continuously mature and grow in our faith in Jesus Christ - while simultaneously presenting us with real to life challenges of faith. How could such a calling come from a false apostle? To denounce Paul as a false apostle is to discourage young believers from growing in their faith in Christ. And isn't *that* the true aim of a false apostle? To keep God's people feeding only on milk, so that their faith in Christ might never mature and then perhaps one day be shipwrecked?

You quoted Revelation 2:20, "But I hold against you that you allow that woman Izebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and lead My servants astray to commit whoring and to eat food offered to idols."

It's fascinating that the word "whoring" is mentioned in this verse, along with the mentioning of foods sacrificed to idols. The Roman Catholic church is identified in the Book of Revelation as a spiritual *whore*. I was originally raised in the Roman Catholic church. There are some of God's people who are still lost inside this whore, trying to find their way out. But until they heed God's call to come out of her, what are they doing in the meantime? In the meantime, some of God's Own people are right now being led to eat food and drink wine that's being offered to them in the name of so many idols. It's not that the people are eating the food and drinking the wine that's offensive and abominable - food is only food, and wine is only wine. It's the fact that right now, some of God's people are still deceived and believe that these Catholic idols *are* gods. In their minds, these idols have power to transform food and wine into something 'holy'. *That* is what's offensive and abominable = Revelation 2:20 = Paul's teaching on eating foods offered to idols.

I hate this entire debate. The reason I hate it is that to the detriment of any of God's people who might be following this debate, the greater meaning of Paul's teaching has been completely obscured. And that is that God's people need to guard their faith in Christ, ensuring that their faith in Christ is continuouly growing and maturing. Otherwise, things that stagnate and never grow tend to die!

Shalom,

I concur with most of what you wrote in your post but I believe the writings of Paul(which I believe were heavily tampered with) have to be measured against the Tenakh as Paul stated they had to when he commended the Bereans for doing so.
I have read many studies on Paul and the passages of of his letters that the modern christian church has used to follow the lawless doctrine. I do not agree with the teachings on food given to idols as the Torah enfatically states that this is forbidden. Yes the idol is a dead thing but the spirit that it represents is not. Baal, Molech and Zeus etc are only idols as well but they represent the demons that are behind them. This is why Yahweh was so enfatic about the children of Israel not following other gods or the practices of the pagan tribes around them. There are spiritual connatations to these practices that leave you open to attack.

Paul dealt with in his letters the reasoning behind your actions rather than the actions themselves. To explain this we need to understand Yahweh's plan for the renewed covenant as shown in Jeremiah.

Jer 31:31 “See, the days are coming,” declares יהוה, “when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Yisraʼĕl and with the house of Yehuḏah1, Footnote: 1See Heb. 8:8-12, Heb. 10:16-17.
Jer 31:32 not like the covenant I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Mitsrayim, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,” declares יהוה.
Jer 31:33 “For this is the covenant I shall make with the house of Yisraʼĕl after those days, declares יהוה: I shall put My Torah in their inward parts, and write it on their hearts. And I shall be their Elohim, and they shall be My people.
Jer 31:34 “And no longer shall they teach, each one his neighbour, and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know יהוה,ʼ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares יהוה. “For I shall forgive their crookedness, and remember their sin no more.”

This is Yahweh's plan and He has stated many times through the prophets before this that the Torah being just in their heads and learnt parrot fashion was not enough that the Torah needed to be in their hearts as well. This was true of the Pharasees of Yeshua's time as they knew the Torah in their heads but did not keep it in their hearts. Hence every thing that they did was for their own ego. They kept the Torah yes but only after a fashion and not because of their love for Yahweh or their fellow man. In other words the Torah was not in their hearts and it was not producing fruit. In another passage of Scripture concerning Yahweh's renewed covenant Yahweh states that He will put His Torah in their hearts and they will do them. The Torah is the Tree of Life and when it is planted in your heart it produces fruit. These fruits are the fruits of the spirit. This is the main theme behind all the technical religious jargon of that time that Paul uses. The fact that Paul and his writings have been used to create a global church that follows a doctrine that is alien to the origional teachings of Yeshua and his disciples cannot go unnoticed. Whether this was Yahweh's intention or just Satans the fact is that with the teachings of modern christianity most of them will hear Yeshua state.

Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Master, Master,ʼ shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of My Father in the heavens.
Mat 7:22 “Many shall say to Me in that day, ‘Master, Master, have we not prophesied in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty works in Your Name?ʼ
Mat 7:23 “And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!ʼ1 Footnote: 1 See v. 15.

What is the will of the Father - To follow His Torah/Law and keep them in both your heart and mind. Those who do not keep them are counted as those who work lawlessness which means they do not follow the Torah.

Yahweh wants you to keep His Torah but He is more interested in the reason why you keep His Torah. This is because without love for Yahweh and your neighbour keeping the Torah is dead but if it is kept in your heart and kept in love then you will see the evidence of that love through the fruits that it produces.

[yhwhschild]

Oh, why didn't you send your intended a PM then? This is a FORUM.

If the `Torah' meaning the Jewish Bible states that no one can eat food given to idols - what did the Jews do with the THOUSANDS of animals they would butcher in that slaughter house called a synagogue during Passover?

You mean the Jewish Pharisees could eat that meat because the victim was slaughtered in the name of their `God' but not in front of an idol? That's the difference? Jesus did not like it, and he made that clear - `You have made my father's house into a den of thieves' (in Greek - murderers). They had him up on the cross the next day.


The incident happened in the Temple and it was not because of the animals being slaughtered there that was the problem as people were making sacrifices in accordance with the Torah. The reason that Yeshua got angry was that the Temple had allowed the sacrifices to be turned into a money making scheme and the were selling the animals for profit which is an insult to Yahweh.

The biggest coop that Satan pulled off was to seperate the newly reformed sect of Judaism who were reconnected to the Torah from its source and change the doctrine of the renewd covenant. This is why we have modern christianity which is devoid of its Judaic roots or the Torah. The whole point of Yeshua's ministry was to return Israel back to the Torah and its true meaning as Yahweh prophecies in Jeremiah 31v31-34. The Torah is the evidence of Yahweh's love for mankind it is what He lives by and how He interacts with His creation.

To many people read Paul and use it for their own beliefs even though their beliefs totally contradict the Torah and the Prophets.

[yhwhschild]

I hate this entire debate. The reason I hate it is that to the detriment of any of God's people who might be following this debate, the greater meaning of Paul's teaching has been completely obscured. And that is that God's people need to guard their faith in Christ, ensuring that their faith in Christ is continuouly growing and maturing. Otherwise, things that stagnate and never grow tend to die!

I think people really need to learn the Torah first and have it in both their hearts and minds first before tackling the writings of Paul. There is no point building a house if your going to use sand as its foundation. All Yeshua's teachings and parables were based on the Torah but unlike the Pharasees and Saducees Yeshua taught the depths of the Torah using the parables of that day. Yeshua's teachings pointed the listener to the meanings behind the Torah and its Laws. Judaism teaches the the Torah is the Torah of Love. It is said that its Yahweh's love letter to creation. The only way that we can fullfill the Torah is through love. Yeshua states this when He states that the Torah can be summed up in to commandment. Love Yahweh with all your heart and your neighbour as your self. It is love that seperates us from the Pharasees and that keeping the Torah without love being the motivator is a dead thing as it will not produce fruit.

Sadly I see this in myself some times in my own writings and most certainly with alot of the "christians" on this site as they condemn every one to hell just because their posts are ignored or scoffed at. True love has no prejudice it just excepts, it is patient, meek and kind it doesn't seek acceptance nor does it condemn. It just shows its truth and lets its light call all mankind to Yahweh as we do not call but its the Spirit of Yahweh that calls.

[kasalt]

I wish you would have answered my question. It's a simple yes, or no answer. I'm not sure why you would have hesitated. Are you a follower of Jesus Christ? I'll check back to see what your answer is.

I would consider it presumptuous of me to say yes, because if Matthew 7:21-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:21-23&version=KJV) is to be taken literally, I think we are all in for a lot of surprises.

[clachan]

Like the criminal in the dock,assume the worst and then anything else is a bonus:D

[quetzalcoatl]

Paul claimed to be an apostle in his letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1:1&version=KJV)), but later on, in his second letter to Timothy, Paul declared that "all those in Asia have turned away from me" (2 Timothy 1:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%201:15&version=AMP)). Ephesus was, at the time, the largest city in Asia, so this means that at some point after he wrote his epistle to them, the Ephesians, for some reason, ceased to regard him as a genuine apostle. Note that he does not say that the believers in Asia abandoned the Christian faith, and he does not say that they abandoned the original Apostles of Jesus. Paul says only that the believers in Asia abandoned him. For some reason, the Ephesians ceased to regard Paul as a genuine Christian leader.

The book of Revelation, allegedly written by the Apostle John, starts off with the resurrected Jesus instructing the author to send messages to seven churches within Asia (Revelation 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1&version=KJV)). The first Asian church to be given a message is the church at Ephesus. If Paul had been a genuine apostle, then surely the resurrected Jesus would have reprimanded the Asians for abandoning his genuine apostle. After all, it was the resurrected Jesus who allegedly appeared to Paul (then known as Saul) which led to his supposed conversion and eventual commission as an apostle. However, turn to Revelation 2:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+2&version=KJV) and read how the resurrected Jesus commended the Ephesians:"I know...that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false."
So in essence, this is how the conversation went:

Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Jesus."
The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not."
Resurrected Jesus to the Ephesians: "Well done!"

I would be tempted to declare the case closed based on this evidence alone, but of course, there are a number of apparent objections that can be raised. I will address these objections as they are presented. For now, I would like to know what mainstream Christians and others on this forum have to say about the information that has been presented thus far.




Well that's one possibly interpertation... I do however reckon it's a bit of a stretch... - Revelations 2:2 doesn't necessarily relate to Paul when it talks of Apostles (plural), also considering the following;

-Conversation of Saul-

Acts 9:3-20;

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

Mysterious ways yo... Mysterious ways... ;)


Also, we have Barnabas' testimony;

Acts 9:26-31

And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 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. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

So granted the Apostles were initially skeptical & understandably kept Paul @ arms length per-se, considering his history... - yet these passages show that they eventually "knew the truth", accepted Paul & sent dat ass forth! :D

Also note; all's well that ends well. :)

[kasalt]

Well that's one possibly interpertation... I do however reckon it is a bit of a stretch...

You'll have to read the rest of the thread. There's lot's more information to consider, and the claim in the OP is quite possibly the weakest link in the entire thread. I'm sure you'll find much of the rest of it to be much more persuasive.

[quetzalcoatl]

You'll have to read the rest of the thread. There's lot's more information to consider, and the claim in the OP is quite possibly the weakest link in the entire thread. I'm sure you'll find much of the rest of it to be much more persuasive.


Alright, I've skimmed through parts of it & haven't the time yet... eventually, maybe, hopefully. I just thought scripture is pretty clear on this.

Although, you aren't exactly alone in coming to conclusions along these lines, regarding Paul...

[raphael]

Alright, I've skimmed through parts of it & haven't the time yet... eventually, maybe, hopefully. I just thought scripture is pretty clear on this.

Although, you aren't exactly alone in coming to conclusions along these lines, regarding Paul...

scripture clear on who wrote the 4 Gospels?
eh?

the blind are waiting to be healed?
....where the hell is the next anti-Christ to activate the zombie Christians?
To wake up the herd?

I hope one of the plebes wakes up from his trance...
I really do want to discuss the NEO-lithic site of TarSuS the home town of Paul, along with the 4 Gospels...but the plebes IGNORE me.
I wonder why...
hahahahaha

that is just the ticket, just the kind of behavior that guarantees them a seat on the spell-hell-bound train.

knowing in their hearts they have been called out....clearly these ignorant christian plebes are the chicken littles who know how to do the NAZI goose-step quite well.

amen

[kasalt]

I concur with most of what you wrote in your post but I believe the writings of Paul(which I believe were heavily tampered with) have to be measured against the Tenakh as Paul stated they had to when he commended the Bereans for doing so...

The fact that Paul and his writings have been used to create a global church that follows a doctrine that is alien to the origional teachings of Yeshua and his disciples cannot go unnoticed.

Too many people read Paul and use it for their own beliefs even though their beliefs totally contradict the Torah and the Prophets.

It is love that seperates us from the Pharasees and that keeping the Torah without love being the motivator is a dead thing as it will not produce fruit.

Sadly I see this in myself some times in my own writings and most certainly with alot of the "christians" on this site as they condemn every one to hell just because their posts are ignored or scoffed at. True love has no prejudice it just excepts, it is patient, meek and kind it doesn't seek acceptance nor does it condemn. It just shows its truth and lets its light call all mankind to Yahweh as we do not call but its the Spirit of Yahweh that calls.

Very well said, Yhwhschild, and it speaks to a lot of my motivations in starting this thread. :)

Alright, I've skimmed through parts of it & haven't the time yet... eventually, maybe, hopefully.

Don't trouble yourself, what I will do is summarize all of the major points that have been made so far in this thread in one post. That way, you wont have to sift through 185 posts just to get the main points... :D

[quetzalcoatl]

scripture clear on who wrote the 4 Gospels?
eh?



Yea well... just for me something about the Conversation of Saul & the description of the encounter with the Risen Christ, rings true for me... Other-than-that, apparently it's not absolutely known - with-out a doubt - the exact authorship of the Acts of the Apostles, of which I quoted. Although it is commonly attributed to Saint Luke.

[quetzalcoatl]

Don't trouble yourself, what I will do is summarize all of the major points that have been made so far in this thread in one post. That way, you wont have to sift through 185 posts just to get the main points... :D

Fair nuff, if ya wish... - personally my mind is already made, yet will always continue to question / investigate, I'd be silly not to right???

Look forward to your analysis... :)

[raphael]

Yea well... just for me something about the Conversation of Saul & the description of the encounter with the Risen Christ, rings true for me... Other-than-that, apparently it's not absolutely known - with-out a doubt - the exact authorship of the Acts of the Apostles, of which I quoted. Although it is commonly attributed to Saint Luke.

whatever
the scholars agree St. Luke along with the other 3 sAIN'Ts who came marching in, were just the names attached to certain ideas.
prove me wrong!
show me proof of their existence WITHOUT using a HIS-story book called the new testament?
and I will show the herd overwhelming PROOF that the 4 Evangelists who wrote the 4 Gospels were archetypes...
Any idea how easy it is to show that all cultures worth their salt have 4 markers for the cardinal directions North, East, South, and West?
Name those 4 markers re: cardinal directions in the bible babble please?
I shall wait an eternity for that answer...plebes plebes plebes are annoying, arrogant, ignorant and quite the challenge, ole' Raphael wants to warn the herd of ewe...the contempt I have for the herd, WILL be manifested as an anger by the non-Christians, the non-believers...be careful...ANGER is on its way, I am the shield, the warning, called contempt...it only gets worse.... :eek:

While the seegullibles search their bibles for markers of the 4 directions...let me know if you find the veiled MOON symbolism too, along with references to the golden spiral, known as the 'phi' spiral.
The Persians had 4 markers for the cardinal directions called the 4 Royal Stars.
Wow 4 R-o-y-a-l S-t-a-r-s, worth investigating if looking for something royal?

here is another question for the religious plebes who can't seem to think straight in the end of daze.
please tell me the point in the bible when it stopped recording historical facts and then switched to predicting the future?
What year was that again....and what year did the entire biblical narrative begin?
Know what I mean?
The Bible sounds very astrological, in some of its claims..., and that seems illogical for the church.
However they never ever do mention 12 houses that sit on the ecliptic, do they?
No not once do they ever call the 12 tribes (old testament) or 12 disciples (newer FIB) the 12 labours of Hercules or the 12 zodiac constellations...
EVEN though for 8000 years before jeSuS was born, extending into the NEO-lithic period all our ancestors did was star gaze? :p
Long ago there was only a 2 channel universe that everybody was tuned into....?
Day and Night.
Maybe a 3rd channel existed too?

So at what point did those who script OUR history for us in the form of the Bible, announce that they no longer wanted to be the custodians of a european/middle eastern history? and keep track of our earthly events?
When did the 'western scribes' who were recording HIS-story as a Gospel hand over that responsibility to the 'historians' and focus on primarily an SoS mantra?
...Save our Sheeple?

So it has always been clear that the winners of the 'political wars', always get to script a big portion of the history that gets dispensed?
Could I assume the same could be true of institutions like 'organized religions'?
Do the IGNORANT judeao/christian plebes think ALL of the rest of the world gets fed the same fucking daily bread and pablum they do???
DUH could you be more IGNORANT?

So the Bible claims to be an accurate history, AND also an accurate reflection of HIS-story called jeSuS, AND it also predicts the future?
WOW
I can see how the sheeple and seegulibles would be impressed with such a book.

But astrology or Persian astronomy and any kind of documented history OTHER than bible babble, that challenges YOUR OFFICIAL STORY is a crock? :p:p
Keep it up...your seat has been reserved for ewe on the hellbound train...

Keeping in mind, that there also exists NO proof of any of the miracles mentioned in OFFICIAL Story?
Keeping in mind the ideas or beliefs in the Bible, are just that.
The religious wankers must stop behaving like they have been granted THE TRUTH, especially since it is so easy to show how fucking IGNORANT they are about ideas OUTSIDE their bubble of belief...that will soon be burst.

That is what an enlightenment is really about?
180 degree flip is an enlightenment...is what any meSSiah would induce.

The Bible is only a theory, hatched by men/women thousands of years ago.
Unfortunately it is a theory that is lacking much critical evidence to be believed as a literal truth.
Figuratively it is as powerful as any narrative.
But taken as a LITERAL truth, with NO proof is the seed of despair.

That is why the judeao/christian is the bad seed trying to exert itself.
But the IGNORANT sheeple are blind to the obvious, watch their behaviors.
Have any of the IGNORANT belligerent christian plebes ever stepped forward to apologize for the criminal behaviors of the group they belong too over the centuries?
What about the nations of USA and Britain** apologize to Iraq for the 1 million INNOCENT dead since the early nineties?
NO

**colonial Britain has been fucking around the middle east for how long now, how many crusades did the ancestors of Britain participate in...?
duhhhhhhh
IGNORANCE fails to comprehend and realize resurrecting the state of Israel (according to the bible, a necessary step) was merely a ploy to create a wedge in the door.
All this Israel/Gulf War/Iraq crap is just that folks....

A veiled Crusade...duh...with simply a clever disguise.

Religious plebes only ever make fucking excuses for their dEVIL induced mantra 'the dEVIL made us do it'.
Here is what I have learned from history and HIS-story in my 52 years...a pattern has been detected. :eek:

The judeao/christian religious zombies have been clearly designed and programmed to be activated when the time is just right.

Watch them do the goose-step like cats on a hot tin roof... :p

mesatan
wants ewe

namaste

[clachan]

scripture clear on who wrote the 4 Gospels?
eh?

the blind are waiting to be healed?
....where the hell is the next anti-Christ to activate the zombie Christians?
To wake up the herd?

I hope one of the plebes wakes up from his trance...
I really do want to discuss the NEO-lithic site of TarSuS the home town of Paul, along with the 4 Gospels...but the plebes IGNORE me.
I wonder why...
hahahahaha

that is just the ticket, just the kind of behavior that guarantees them a seat on the spell-hell-bound train.

knowing in their hearts they have been called out....clearly these ignorant christian plebes are the chicken littles who know how to do the NAZI goose-step quite well.

amen

You wonder why you are ignored ????
Why would anyone want to converse with a hate filled mad man who includes insults in every single post he submits ?

The negative person too frequently expresses anger which contributes to his
own bad health and mental instability.

You are ignored because you are quite clearly insane,once you understand this then you may be able to get some help.

[gracimusic]

Someone wrote somewhere that the Bible and other holy books, were written not by the ones everybody knows, but by insiders who knew the game and where behind the events occurring at that time. Maybe our friend Paul was just a tool.

[innerlight]

Someone wrote somewhere that the Bible and other holy books, were written not by the ones everybody knows, but by insiders who knew the game and where behind the events occurring at that time. Maybe our friend Paul was just a tool.

perhaps those who wrote the "holy books" had a real grasp on human nature, much like those who wrote and directed the Star Wars movies...there would be those who understood the gnostic and deepest meanings, but the majority would just be entertained and not have a clue about the "overall message"......i don't read the bible, but i grew up with it, and I totally believe that if everyone "grasped" the unconditional love taught by "Jesus", this world would be a different place as we know it.....

but, most want to piss and moan at each other over who's truth is "truth"...what could be used to unite us is ultimately used to divide us.....and it's not limited to the "holy books"....division is everywhere...sports teams, political affiliations, colour of skin, etc etc.......all external things we focus on......my focus as of late has led me to believe I am just as divisive as any "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Sheeple" or "Awakened person" as long as i don't KNOW MYSELF...when we are no longer divided in our thoughts, emotions, habits, etc, we then can start "vibing" with the connectedness that is earth and all that dwells upon it and within....

[quetzalcoatl]

whatever
the scholars agree St. Luke along with the other 3 sAIN'Ts who came marching in, were just the names attached to certain ideas.
prove me wrong!
show me proof of their existence WITHOUT using a HIS-story book called the new testament?
and I will show the herd overwhelming PROOF that the 4 Evangelists who wrote the 4 Gospels were archetypes...
Any idea how easy it is to show that all cultures worth their salt have 4 markers for the cardinal directions North, East, South, and West?
Name those 4 markers re: cardinal directions in the bible babble please?
I shall wait an eternity for that answer...plebes plebes plebes are annoying, arrogant, ignorant and quite the challenge, ole' Raphael wants to warn the herd of ewe...the contempt I have for the herd, WILL be manifested as an anger by the non-Christians, the non-believers...be careful...ANGER is on its way, I am the shield, the warning, called contempt...it only gets worse.... :eek:

While the seegullibles search their bibles for markers of the 4 directions...let me know if you find the veiled MOON symbolism too, along with references to the golden spiral, known as the 'phi' spiral.
The Persians had 4 markers for the cardinal directions called the 4 Royal Stars.
Wow 4 R-o-y-a-l S-t-a-r-s, worth investigating if looking for something royal?

here is another question for the religious plebes who can't seem to think straight in the end of daze.
please tell me the point in the bible when it stopped recording historical facts and then switched to predicting the future?
What year was that again....and what year did the entire biblical narrative begin?
Know what I mean?
The Bible sounds very astrological, in some of its claims..., and that seems illogical for the church.
However they never ever do mention 12 houses that sit on the ecliptic, do they?
No not once do they ever call the 12 tribes (old testament) or 12 disciples (newer FIB) the 12 labours of Hercules or the 12 zodiac constellations...
EVEN though for 8000 years before jeSuS was born, extending into the NEO-lithic period all our ancestors did was star gaze? :p
Long ago there was only a 2 channel universe that everybody was tuned into....?
Day and Night.
Maybe a 3rd channel existed too?

So at what point did those who script OUR history for us in the form of the Bible, announce that they no longer wanted to be the custodians of a european/middle eastern history? and keep track of our earthly events?
When did the 'western scribes' who were recording HIS-story as a Gospel hand over that responsibility to the 'historians' and focus on primarily an SoS mantra?
...Save our Sheeple?

So it has always been clear that the winners of the 'political wars', always get to script a big portion of the history that gets dispensed?
Could I assume the same could be true of institutions like 'organized religions'?
Do the IGNORANT judeao/christian plebes think ALL of the rest of the world gets fed the same fucking daily bread and pablum they do???
DUH could you be more IGNORANT?

So the Bible claims to be an accurate history, AND also an accurate reflection of HIS-story called jeSuS, AND it also predicts the future?
WOW
I can see how the sheeple and seegulibles would be impressed with such a book.

But astrology or Persian astronomy and any kind of documented history OTHER than bible babble, that challenges YOUR OFFICIAL STORY is a crock? :p:p
Keep it up...your seat has been reserved for ewe on the hellbound train...

Keeping in mind, that there also exists NO proof of any of the miracles mentioned in OFFICIAL Story?
Keeping in mind the ideas or beliefs in the Bible, are just that.
The religious wankers must stop behaving like they have been granted THE TRUTH, especially since it is so easy to show how fucking IGNORANT they are about ideas OUTSIDE their bubble of belief...that will soon be burst.

That is what an enlightenment is really about?
180 degree flip is an enlightenment...is what any meSSiah would induce.

The Bible is only a theory, hatched by men/women thousands of years ago.
Unfortunately it is a theory that is lacking much critical evidence to be believed as a literal truth.
Figuratively it is as powerful as any narrative.
But taken as a LITERAL truth, with NO proof is the seed of despair.

That is why the judeao/christian is the bad seed trying to exert itself.
But the IGNORANT sheeple are blind to the obvious, watch their behaviors.
Have any of the IGNORANT belligerent christian plebes ever stepped forward to apologize for the criminal behaviors of the group they belong too over the centuries?
What about the nations of USA and Britain** apologize to Iraq for the 1 million INNOCENT dead since the early nineties?
NO

**colonial Britain has been fucking around the middle east for how long now, how many crusades did the ancestors of Britain participate in...?
duhhhhhhh
IGNORANCE fails to comprehend and realize resurrecting the state of Israel (according to the bible, a necessary step) was merely a ploy to create a wedge in the door.
All this Israel/Gulf War/Iraq crap is just that folks....

A veiled Crusade...duh...with simply a clever disguise.

Religious plebes only ever make fucking excuses for their dEVIL induced mantra 'the dEVIL made us do it'.
Here is what I have learned from history and HIS-story in my 52 years...a pattern has been detected. :eek:

The judeao/christian religious zombies have been clearly designed and programmed to be activated when the time is just right.

Watch them do the goose-step like cats on a hot tin roof... :p

mesatan
wants ewe

namaste




Awww... thanks for taking the time... ;)


I'd say;

"As Above, So Below..." - also, there are in-fact 13 Constellations of the Zodiac... :p


So something like the Bible & it's patriarchs are all bunkum??? yet hell is some real destination where, in your 'angst & frustration', are quite happy to condemn us plebes / profane to?? - pfffft! you're grasping @ straws... ;)


&;

"As it is written so shall it be..."

"By their fruits ye shall know them..."


Other-than-that, I'm not confirming nor denying any-such conspiracy here... - I dun fully understand it all, yet... I just so happen to believe in Christ's teachings, believe he is the seed of God / Gods & that he will one day return, in a similar fashion he resurrected...


I'm dipping out for now... - look forward to Kasalt's interpretations to the validity of St. Paul...

[kasalt]

(Note: This thread is beginning to get a bit long, so I thought I would compile all of the main points that have been made so far into one post for ease of reference. If you've read the entire thread up to this point, there won't be much new information for you in this post.)
With Paul, we are supposed to believe that a man who never knew Jesus and who started out in life by persecuting his followers nevertheless went on to write almost half of the New Testament, while the original Apostles of Jesus--who actually spent a great deal of time with him and were personally instructed by him--were made to fade into nearly complete obscurity. In my opinion, this seems completely counter-intuitive.

Perhaps it could have been that Paul, while starting out persecuting the Church, eventually decided, "If you can't beat them, join them", and then proceeded to co-opt their movement. Throughout history, there have been those who believe that Paul fabricated his conversion and asserted his leadership in the early Church, after which he inserted his own teachings--at least some of which were contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the original Apostles.

The book of Acts was written by an associate of Paul named Luke the Evangelist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (he was a traveling companion with Paul on some of his missionary journeys). It appears that the book of Acts was written in part to smooth over the history of the rocky relationship that Paul had with the original twelve Apostles of Jesus. The book of Acts does mention that the Twelve were initially wary of Paul, admitting that they were uncertain of the genuineness of his conversion (Acts 9:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209:26&version=KJV)). But as the narrative progresses, Luke presents Paul as an "apostle" in perfectly good standing with the original Twelve. Then, at about the middle of the book, the author focuses almost exclusively on the activities of Paul, while the activities of the original Apostles go unrecorded. (This is perhaps understandable, given that Luke traveled with Paul, and therefore was not with the Apostles in order to record their activities.) However, it is curious that absolutely no mention is made in Acts of the Incident at Antioch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia between Paul and the original Apostles, which Paul himself described in chapter 2 of his epistle to the Galatians. In fact, Paul even went so far as to state:"But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=peter&version1=9&searchtype=all&bookset=10&limit=bookset)).
Clearly, Peter and Paul were not on good terms, and yet we are supposed to believe that in one of his own epistles, Peter declared Paul's writings to be on a par with scripture:"Our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 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" (II Peter 3:15b-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:15-16&version=NIV)).
Here we are supposed to believe that Peter referred to Paul as "our dear brother", and that he lauded the writings of Paul--even as Paul was bashing Peter in those very same writings! It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that most scholars today are of the opinion that the epistles attributed to Peter are Pseudepigraph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia works. Even Roman Catholic theologians and scholars who believe that Peter was the first pope accept that the epistles that are attributed to Peter in the New Testament were written by someone else, and in fact there are very good reasons to support this contention. Here are just a couple of those reasons:1) II Peter is not mentioned at all by early Christian writers until the time of Origen (3rd century AD), and when he does mention it, it is to say that II Peter's authenticity was contested. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon say nothing at all about it. In Eusebius' time, II Peter was regarded by Christians as Antilegomena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It wasn't until the late 4th century that the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, in league with the Pope and the Emperor of Rome, declared II Peter to be canonical.

2) The author of II Peter identifies himself as "Simeon Peter". This use of "Simeon" in reference to Peter is a variant of the name that is completely unique to II Peter. Everywhere else in the New Testament, the name given is "Simon". (The Greek transliteration for "Simon" is Simwna, but in II Peter the transliteration is Sumewn, for "Simeon".) This, to me, suggests evidence of forgery on the part of the real author, who perhaps was unaware of the preferred variant of the name. Many more sound reasons in support of the pseudonymity of II Peter are given in the following articles:

Authorship of the Petrine epistles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

Aside from the fact that the author of Acts presents his readers with a Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, he also seems to slip up in a number of ways. For example, the book of Acts contains a number of factual discrepancies about Paul. These discrepancies are found both within the book of Acts itself, and between Acts and Paul's epistles. Here are a few examples...

One apparent contradiction is Paul's claim, recorded in Acts 22:3-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2022:3-4;&version=KJV;), that prior to his conversion, he was a student of the Jewish rabbi Gamaliel. The contradiction rests in the fact that according to Acts 5:34-42 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205:34-42;&version=9;), Gamaliel warned against persecuting the Christian sect, "lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (to use his words as the are presented in the King James Version). If Gamaliel warned against persecuting Christians, and Saul was supposedly a dutiful, strictly obedient student who learned "at the feet of Gamaliel", then how was it possible that Saul found himself murdering Christians? Did Paul decide to flout his master's instructions, or did Gamaliel change his instructions? Neither the author of Acts nor Paul himself in his epistles bothers to address this point.

Another contradiction is found in the accounts of Paul's conversion. The first account of Paul's conversion is given in Acts 9:3-9, and Paul's retelling of his conversion is recorded in Acts 22:6-11 and again in Acts 26:12-18. When we compare these accounts, obvious discrepancies arise:Acts 9:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209:3-9&version=KJV) claims that the men traveling with Paul STOOD speechless, HEARING THE VOICE but NOT SEEING anyone.
Acts 22:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2022:9;&version=9;) claims that the men with traveling Paul DID NOT HEAR the voice, but they DID SEE a mysterious bright light.
Acts 26:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2026:14;&version=9;) claims that the men traveling with Paul all FELL to the ground and DID HEAR the voice.
To recap: Did the men with Paul hear a voice as Acts 9:7 and 26:14 claims, or did they not hear a voice as Acts 22:9 claims? Did the men with Paul remain standing as Acts 9:7 claims, or did they all fall to the ground along with Paul as Acts 26:14 claims? As you can see, each account gives conflicting details. (These inconsistencies may seem trivial to some, but they are not trivial in light of the claim that the book of Acts is alleged to be a portion of the Biblical inerrancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and divinely-inspired "word of God".) By the way, each account also gives varying descriptions of Jesus' words to Paul.

James' epistle, in a number of ways, appears to be a response to Paul's teachings with which he disagreed. For example, compare James 1:13-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%201:13-16&version=KJV) with Romans 7:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%207:8&version=AMP); James 2:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:21&version=KJV) with Romans 4:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204:2&version=KJV); and James 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:24&version=KJV) with Romans 3:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:28&version=KJV). Likewise, Revelation 2:14, 20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%202:14,%2020&version=KJV) (allegedly written by the Apostle John) and Acts (15:20, 29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:20,29&version=KJV) and 21:25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2021:25&version=KJV)) weighs in against eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols, but Paul taught that it was permissible within certain parameters (I Corinthians 8:4-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:4-8&version=KJV); I Corinthians 10:27-30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:27-30&version=KJV)).

Another issue is Paul's unusual teaching on what he considered to be the appropriate length of mens' hair. In I Corinthians 11:14, Paul wrote:"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
Paul's view that long hair is "shameful" seems strange because under Old Testament teaching, men who took on the vows of a Nazarite were required to let their hair grow long. Regarding those who took the Nazarite vow, Numbers 6:5 explicitly states:"They must never cut their hair throughout the time of their vow, for they are holy and set apart to the LORD. Until the time of their vow has been fulfilled, they must let their hair grow long."
On some occasions, men only made a Nazarite vow for a relatively short duration of time, in which case their hair did not have time to grow long. However, some Nazarites took lifelong vows. The Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Nazarites (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=N&artid=142) states: "The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice.""A Nazarite for life might cut his too abundant hair once a year, but a Samson Nazarite might not cut his hair under any circumstances."
Samson and Samuel are two examples from the Old Testament of men who were Nazarites for life. In the New Testament, John the Baptist was a Nazarite for life. All of these men had long hair. And yet, Paul says that it is shameful for a man to have long hair, and that "nature itself" teaches us this. But why did Paul think this way? The answer boils down to a pseudo-scientific belief held by the ancient Greeks that long hair would make a man infertile: When Paul tells the church in Corinth that "nature teaches" that it is "degrading" for men to wear their hair long, the apostle to the gentiles is alluding to once-common beliefs about the role of hair in sexual intercourse...Men with long locks would divert too much semen from their scrotum where their pubic hair and testicles have become larger at puberty. Luxurious hair on women serves them well, however, because those long, hollow hairs add to the suction in her body.

"Long feminine hairs assist the uterus in drawing semen upward and inward; masculine testicles, which are connected to the brain by two channels, facilitate the drawing of semen downward and outward," wrote Martin. The favorite Hippocratic test for fertility in women was linked to the belief about the strong suction power of their head of hair.
Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_n6173721/ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_9_121/ai_n6173721/)

I seriously doubt that Paul would have told either Samson or John the Baptist that it was "shameful" for them to have long hair.

Another odd fact about Paul's writings is that he virtually never quoted the sayings of Jesus, yet he did find time to quote from Plato and other "pagan" Greek philosophers and poets. The reason why most people are not aware of this is because most of his quotes and inspirations from those sources are without attribution.

Many examples of Paul's dependence on Greek philosophy can be cited. For example, Plato wrote in Phaedrus (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html) that we only perceive reality as "seen through a glass dimly". Paul echoed Plato as follows: "We see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12). Additionally, in his Apology (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html), Plato wrote that Socrates was deemed wise because he knew he knew nothing. Plato quoted Socrates as saying:"I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, but I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know."
Paul echoed that thought in his first letter to the Corinthians, where he wrote:"If any man think that he knows any thing, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." (1 Cor 8:2)Paul also quoted other pagan Greek philosopher-poets. For example, in Acts 17:28, Paul states, "For in Him we live and move and have our being." This is actually a quote from Epimenides - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' Creatia. Paul quoted Epimenides again in Titus 1:12, in which he wrote, "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, 'the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies'." Below is the actual passage of Epimenides' Creatia from which Paul derived those quotes:They fashioned a tomb for thee [O Zeus], O holy and high one-
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
(Notice how the above passage, which actually refers to the immortality of Zeus, could also be reapplied to Jesus. Look at the first and third lines and replace Zeus with Jesus: "They fashioned a tomb for thee [O Jesus], O holy and high one...But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever...")

Again in Acts 17:28, Paul states, "Certain of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring'." Paul was quoting from line 4 of the opening lines of Aratus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' Phaenomena (http://www.theoi.com/Text/AratusPhaenomena.html):From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed;
full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men;
full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus.
For we are also his offspring...
In 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul quoted Menander - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia when he stated, "Evil communications corrupt good manners".

In fact, Paul would have us believe that even Jesus himself quoted the Greek philosopher-poets. In Acts 9:5, during Saul's visionary conversion experience on the road to Damascus, Jesus is quoted as saying to him:"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
The statement, "It is hard for you to kick against the goads," always struck me as a rather unusual thing for Christ to have said, in part because when I first read it, I didn't understand what it meant. Besides, which, it struck me as rather unlike anything Jesus is recorded to have said in the Gospels, and therefore it seemed like it was a bit "out of character" for him to say that, in my opinion. It also doesn't appear in the Old Testament.

It turns out that this phrase was actually taken from an ancient pagan Greek proverb that predates the New Testament. The analogy of an animal kicking against the goads was used in pagan Greek literature to refer to a human being who was resisting the will of the gods. It is found first in Pindar's Odes, Pythia 2.94-5:"It is best to take the yoke on one's neck and bear it lightly; kicking against the goads makes the path treacherous."
The phrase is also found in Euripides' Bacchae:"I would sacrifice to the god rather than kick against his goads in anger, a mortal against a god."It is found yet again in Aeschylus, Agamemnon, Line 1624:"Do not kick against the goads lest you strike to your own hurt."
Reference: http://www.christianorigins.com/euripidesluke.html

It would appear that after his resurrection, Jesus found time to read the classics!

For anyone who is interested in reading more on this subject, there are two very informative articles that goes into much further detail regarding Paul's dependence on Plato and other classical Greek philosophers. The first is an article by F.F. Powell entitled "Saint Paul's Homage to Plato", Highly recommended. Here is the link:

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/pub...ril/mtpub2.asp (http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/public/2004/April/mtpub2.asp)

The above linked article explains how Paul drew from Plato's philosophy "when he described the church as Christ's body, the gifts of the Spirit, ecstatic utterances in worship, putting on righteousness as a garment, conscience as a guide, and love as the greatest of Christian virtues."

The second is a Paul-friendly article entitled "Plato, Philo, and Paul: The Influence of Platonic Thought on Paul's Theosophy", written by Jim Chapman:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1824431/plato_philo_and_paul_the_influence.html?singlepage =true&cat=34

(That's all I have for now. I'll be back with some new information in my next post!)

[gracimusic]

perhaps those who wrote the "holy books" had a real grasp on human nature, much like those who wrote and directed the Star Wars movies...there would be those who understood the gnostic and deepest meanings, but the majority would just be entertained and not have a clue about the "overall message"......i don't read the bible, but i grew up with it, and I totally believe that if everyone "grasped" the unconditional love taught by "Jesus", this world would be a different place as we know it.....

but, most want to piss and moan at each other over who's truth is "truth"...what could be used to unite us is ultimately used to divide us.....and it's not limited to the "holy books"....division is everywhere...sports teams, political affiliations, colour of skin, etc etc.......all external things we focus on......my focus as of late has led me to believe I am just as divisive as any "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Sheeple" or "Awakened person" as long as i don't KNOW MYSELF...when we are no longer divided in our thoughts, emotions, habits, etc, we then can start "vibing" with the connectedness that is earth and all that dwells upon it and within....

Agreed.
Duality / Division is the reason of the existence of this realm. Without duality (waves) there is no matter.

[amaralsright]

Do you notice Paul almost never quotes any of Jesus words or teachings??? Strange. No it's all about PAUL and Paulisms. For example, Paul puts women and slaves back in their place. :(

That is very true, it is strange that Paul doesn't mention any of the words or parables attributed to Jesus in other texts.

It's not as if the gospels had already been written either, they were some documents floating about that Mark, Matthew and Luke cherry picked but Paul doesn't mention them. The sayings of Jesus were doing the rounds - the stuff that made it into the New Testament 400 years later and the stuff that did not (gnostic).

The Paul thing is most strange.

[amaralsright]

there was 5 Beatles. So that doesn't work.

There were 6 including Yoko.

[rich157]

ole' Raphael is re-learning the serpentine tongue

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1231/49335878.jpg (http://img684.imageshack.us/i/49335878.jpg/)

:p

[kasalt]

In Paul's epistle to the Philippians, he wrote:"If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; concerning righteousness which is in the Law, faultless." (Philippians 3:3-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%203:3-6&version=KJV))
What's interesting about this is that Paul stated that even while he was persecuting Christians, he was being obedient to the Mosaic Law.

There are considerable implications to this...

.

[drakul]

In Paul's epistle to the Philippians, he wrote:"If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; concerning righteousness which is in the Law, faultless." (Philippians 3:3-6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%203:3-6&version=KJV))
What's interesting about this is that Paul stated that even while he was persecuting Christians, he was being obedient to the Mosaic Law.

There are considerable implications to this...

.

Like???

[drakul]

That is very true, it is strange that Paul doesn't mention any of the words or parables attributed to Jesus in other texts.

It's not as if the gospels had already been written either, they were some documents floating about that Mark, Matthew and Luke cherry picked but Paul doesn't mention them. The sayings of Jesus were doing the rounds - the stuff that made it into the New Testament 400 years later and the stuff that did not (gnostic).

The Paul thing is most strange.

The fact that Paul does not discuss Jesus' parables - which are rich and fascinating, tells me that Paul really did not know anything about Jesus, and or he was sent as an Agent of Influence to `turn' the budding Christian church. What a load of trippery and baggage Paul put on the New Testament. Putting women down, forcing women out of the priestly class and power structure of the church, etc. The end was that Mary Magdalene became stereotyped as a `whore'.

[kasalt]

Like???

For Paul to say that he was "faultless" from the point of view of Mosaic law while he was persecuting Christians implies that from the point of view of the Mosaic Law, there was nothing wrong with persecuting Christians.

Further, it implies that Christianity and Mosaic law are incompatible.

[raphael]

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/1231/49335878.jpg (http://img684.imageshack.us/i/49335878.jpg/)

:p

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/image.php?u=17746&dateline=1260796493

I like your avatar and your response which was predictably followed by 4 more stupid inane postings by bible babblers who are either ...

1/ too ignorant to follow along with the facts of life

or

2/ too fucking deep into the CULT.
Should we rescue the SUN worshiping funnyANDmentalist plebes like you would any other loved one if they got abducted by the MOONIES?

baa baa baa

The numb and dumb religious plebes don't realize the reason they are taught to reBLEAT non-sense is because they have been bad boys and girls...not unlike when you are told to write something on the blackboard 100 times to help EWE remember the TRUTH...

baa baa baa
mesatan

[rich157]

I like your avatar

Thanks

and your response which was predictably followed by 4 more stupid inane postings by bible babblers who are either ...

1/ too ignorant to follow along with the facts of life

or

2/ too fucking deep into the CULT.
Should we rescue the SUN worshiping funnyANDmentalist plebes like you would any other loved one if they got abducted by the MOONIES?

baa baa baa


Fork 'em, the clues are everywhere... ignorance is bliss & all that... so I've heard. lol

[drakul]

For Paul to say that he was "faultless" from the point of view of Mosaic law while he was persecuting Christians implies that from the point of view of the Mosaic Law, there was nothing wrong with persecuting Christians.

Further, it implies that Christianity and Mosaic law are incompatible.

Doesn't Paul's statement imply just the opposite, that Mosaic and Christian law ARE compatible? IOW Mosaic law says its OK to persecute unbelievers, and since Christianity is built on a Judaic foundation (supposedly), it is permissible to persecute `heretics' under Christian law too? Strange, I know.

[amaralsright]

Paul also said the end was imminent.

I think he did anyway from memory.

Which rubbed against what Jesus was supposed to have said "no one knows".

But then Jesus blew it with his "this generation shall not pass way..." schtick.

[orlibonurb]

Doesn't Paul's statement imply just the opposite, that Mosaic and Christian law ARE compatible? IOW Mosaic law says its OK to persecute unbelievers, and since Christianity is built on a Judaic foundation (supposedly), it is permissible to persecute `heretics' under Christian law too? Strange, I know.

No. They are not compatible.

Mosaic law has nothing to do with the new law Christ brought by His death on the cross.

There's a big difference between the Old Covenant (old Mosaic law) and the New Covenant (what Christ brought to us).


Question: "What is the New Covenant?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html

Question: "What is the Mosaic Covenant?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/Mosaic-covenant.html

[quetzalcoatl]

With Paul, we are supposed to believe that a man who never knew Jesus and who started out in life by persecuting his followers nevertheless went on to write almost half of the New Testament, while the original Apostles of Jesus--who actually spent a great deal of time with him and were personally instructed by him--were made to fade into nearly complete obscurity. In my opinion, this seems completely counter-intuitive.

Sure, why not??? - I'm completely serious here; there's absolutely no reason why Paul couldn't have been 'made' (see there's something your missing / can't accept the reality of or are in denial of) a pillar & leader / Minister / Apostle to the gentiles / greater masses etc... In-fact this serves only to strengthen & validate Christ's teachings of compassion & forgiveness...


Perhaps it could have been that Paul, while starting out persecuting the Church, eventually decided, "If you can't beat them, join them", and then proceeded to co-opt their movement. Throughout history, there have been those who believe that Paul fabricated his conversion and asserted his leadership in the early Church, after which he inserted his own teachings--at least some of which were contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the original Apostles.

Re; "can't beat em, join em"... oh come on... this is un-founded speculative conjecture... again, there's obviously something your missing here... - Other-than-that, I think it is quite plausible that Paul might've taught things slightly contrary to the teachings of Jesus, no one is perfect, we're all just human... After-all Paul never actually meet Jesus in the flesh, yet was given a far greater (IMO) gift - which here-in lies the 'problem'... ;)


The book of Acts was written by an associate of Paul named Luke (he was a traveling companion with Paul on some of his missionary journeys). It appears that the book of Acts was written in part to smooth over the history of the rocky relationship that Paul had with the original twelve Apostles of Jesus. The book of Acts does mention that the Twelve were initially wary of Paul, admitting that they were uncertain of the genuineness of his conversion (Acts 9:26). But as the narrative progresses, Luke presents Paul as an "apostle" in perfectly good standing with the original Twelve. Then, at about the middle of the book, the author focuses almost exclusively on the activities of Paul, while the activities of the original Apostles go unrecorded. (This is perhaps understandable, given that Luke traveled with Paul, and therefore was not with the Apostles in order to record their activities.) However, it is curious that absolutely no mention is made in Acts of the schism between Paul and the original Apostles, which Paul himself described in chapter 2 of his epistle to the Galatians. In fact, Paul even went so far as to state:
"But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11).
Clearly, Peter and Paul were not on good terms, and yet we are supposed to believe that in one of his own epistles, Peter declared Paul's writings to be on a par with scripture:
"Our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 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" (II Peter 3:15b-16).

Hmmm... yep, well of-course it wouldn't have been the easiest of transitions, going from persecuting / putting to death the followers of Christ, to, being a leader / Minister - after having a Revelation from the Risen Christ - of the early Christan movement, quite understandably... Basically, over-all someone whom received Revelation / Witness of the Resurrected Christ is some force to be reckoned with...

Here we are supposed to believe that Peter referred to Paul as "our dear brother", and that he lauded the writings of Paul--even as Paul was bashing Peter in those very same writings! It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that most scholars today are of the opinion that the epistles attributed to Peter are pseudepigraphal works. Even Roman Catholic theologians and scholars who believe that Peter was the first pope accept that the epistles that are attributed to Peter in the New Testament were written by someone else, and in fact there are very good reasons to support this contention. Here are just a couple of those reasons:
1) II Peter is not mentioned at all by early Christian writers until the time of Origen (3rd century AD), and when he does mention it, it is to say that II Peter's authenticity was contested. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon say nothing at all about it. In Eusebius' time, II Peter was regarded by Christians as antilegomena. It wasn't until the late 4th century that the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, in league with the Pope and the Emperor of Rome, declared II Peter to be canonical.

2) The author of II Peter identifies himself as "Simeon Peter". This use of "Simeon" in reference to Peter is a variant of the name that is completely unique to II Peter. Everywhere else in the New Testament, the name given is "Simon". (The Greek transliteration for "Simon" is Simwna, but in II Peter the transliteration is Sumewn, for "Simeon".) This, to me, suggests evidence of forgery on the part of the real author, who perhaps was unaware of the preferred variant of the name.
Many more sound reasons in support of the pseudonymity of II Peter are given in the following articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...trine_epistles

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

Yes, yes, quite plausible indeed... - however, it still doesn't necessarily equate to any conspiracy to say; 'infiltrate / high-jack' the early Christian movement, not assuming that's what you were implying mind... Also in regards to "Paul bashing Peter"... I think its down to perception here; especially with; "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed" - it could well have been Peter was simply cross-referencing Paul (possibly giving em a hard time, perhaps??) or putting his feet to the fire, per-se & Paul simply held his ground / spoke his truth or somthing... I don't know enough, yet I've never had the impression "Paul was bashing Peter", verbally of other-wise...


Aside from the fact that the author of Acts presents his readers with a selective history of events, he also seems to slip up in a number of ways. For example, the book of Acts contains a number of factual discrepancies about Paul. These discrepancies are found both within the book of Acts itself, and between Acts and Paul's epistles. Here are a few examples...

One apparent contradiction is Paul's claim, recorded in Acts 22:3-4, that prior to his conversion, he was a student of the Jewish rabbi Gamaliel. The contradiction rests in the fact that according to Acts 5:34-42, Gamaliel warned against persecuting the Christian sect, "lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (to use his words as the are presented in the King James Version). If Gamaliel warned against persecuting Christians, and Saul was supposedly a dutiful, strictly obedient student who learned "at the feet of Gamaliel", then how was it possible that Saul found himself murdering Christians? Did Paul decide to flout his master's instructions, or did Gamaliel change his instructions? Neither the author of Acts nor Paul himself in his epistles bothers to address this point.

Well, is human error / fallibility a foreign concept to the likes of you?? - "Judge not lest you be judged".

Could not it have been simply favoring military orders??? - I don't see much hypocrisy here with Paul; I see a man torn in twain, between old bad habits dying hard & knew Divine Revelation setting-in, per-se... - "The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."


Another contradiction is found in the accounts of Paul's conversion. The first account of Paul's conversion is given in Acts 9:3-9, and Paul's retelling of his conversion is recorded in Acts 22:6-11 and again in Acts 26:12-18. When we compare these accounts, obvious discrepancies arise:
Acts 9:7 claims that the men traveling with Paul STOOD speechless, HEARING THE VOICE but NOT SEEING anyone.
Acts 22:9 claims that the men with traveling Paul DID NOT HEAR the voice, but they DID SEE a mysterious bright light.
Acts 26:14 claims that the men traveling with Paul all FELL to the ground and DID HEAR the voice.

To recap: Did the men with Paul hear a voice as Acts 9:7 and 26:14 claims, or did they not hear a voice as Acts 22:9 claims? Did the men with Paul remain standing as Acts 9:7 claims, or did they all fall to the ground along with Paul as Acts 26:14 claims? As you can see, each account gives conflicting details. (These inconsistencies may seem trivial to some, but they are not trivial in light of the claim that the book of Acts is alleged to be a portion of the inerrant and divinely-inspired "word of God".) By the way, each account also gives varying descriptions of Jesus' words to Paul.

Yep, that's just the way it may-well have gone, I'd say... - some may have seen, some may-well of heard... no reason @ all why it couldn't have been experienced slightly differently... Also Re; "Word of God" - I think that's quite right, the divinely inspired Word of God, I see here an consistent account of a Heavenly (sky) encounter with Christ; now, passing through the filter of man we see slight variations. Same thing happens to this day, with say witness's to a crime; which is probably a poor & unflattering example... - yet the metaphor remains...


James' epistle, in a number of ways, appears to be a response to Paul's teachings with which he disagreed. For example, compare James 1:13-16 with Romans 7:8; James 2:21 with Romans 4:2; and James 2:24 with Romans 3:28. Likewise, Revelation 2:14, 20 (allegedly written by the Apostle John) and Acts (15:20, 29 and 21:25) weighs in against eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols, but Paul taught that it was permissible within certain parameters (I Corinthians 8:4-8; I Corinthians 10:27-30).


Another problem with Paul is his unusual teaching on the appropriate length of mens' hair. In I Corinthians 11:14, Paul wrote:
"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
This was an unusual thing for Paul to say because under Old Testament teaching, men who took on the vows of a Nazarite were required to let their hair grow long. Regarding those who took the Nazarite vow, Numbers 6:5 explicitly states:
"They must never cut their hair throughout the time of their vow, for they are holy and set apart to the LORD. Until the time of their vow has been fulfilled, they must let their hair grow long."

On some occasions, men only made a Nazarite vow for a relatively short duration of time, in which case their hair did not have time to grow long. However, some Nazarites took lifelong vows. The Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Nazarites states:
"The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice."
"A Nazarite for life might cut his too abundant hair once a year, but a Samson Nazarite might not cut his hair under any circumstances."
Samson and Samuel are two examples from the Old Testament of men who were Nazarites for life. In the New Testament, John the Baptist was a Nazarite for life. All of these men had long hair. And yet, Paul says that it is shameful for a man to have long hair, and that "nature itself" teaches us this. But why did Paul think this way? The answer boils down to a pseudo-scientific belief held by the ancient Greeks that long hair would make a man infertile:
When Paul tells the church in Corinth that "nature teaches" that it is "degrading" for men to wear their hair long, the apostle to the gentiles is alluding to once-common beliefs about the role of hair in sexual intercourse...Men with long locks would divert too much semen from their scrotum where their pubic hair and testicles have become larger at puberty. Luxurious hair on women serves them well, however, because those long, hollow hairs add to the suction in her body.

"Long feminine hairs assist the uterus in drawing semen upward and inward; masculine testicles, which are connected to the brain by two channels, facilitate the drawing of semen downward and outward," wrote Martin. The favorite Hippocratic test for fertility in women was linked to the belief about the strong suction power of their head of hair.
Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_n6173721/

I seriously doubt that Paul would have told either Samson or John the Baptist that it was "shameful" for them to have long hair.

Oh Lord... das it in a nut-shell; "problem with Paul", of-course! get-it??? prolly not... :p - "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?" I can't see anything wrong with this question... - Also, consider Paul had never meet Jesus & may-well have not even been very familiar with his Teachings; basically, Universal Truth is just that; UNIVERSAL!


Another odd fact about Paul's writings is that he virtually never quoted the sayings of Jesus, yet he did find time to quote from Plato and other "pagan" Greek philosophers and poets. The reason why most people are not aware of this is because most of his quotes and inspirations from those sources are without attribution.

Many examples of Paul's dependence on Greek philosophy can be cited. For example, Plato wrote in Phaedrus that we only perceive reality as "seen through a glass dimly". Paul echoed Plato as follows: "We see through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12). Additionally, in his Apology, Plato wrote that Socrates was deemed wise because he knew he knew nothing. Plato quoted Socrates as saying:
"I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, but I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know."
Paul echoed that thought in his first letter to the Corinthians, where he wrote:
"If any man think that he knows any thing, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." (1 Cor 8:2)
Paul also quoted other pagan Greek philosopher-poets. For example, in Acts 17:28, Paul states, "For in Him we live and move and have our being." This is actually a quote from Epimenides' Creatia. Paul quoted Epimenides again in Titus 1:12, in which he wrote, "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, 'the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies'." Below is the actual passage of Epimenides' Creatia from which Paul derived those quotes:
They fashioned a tomb for thee [O Zeus], O holy and high one-
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
(Notice how the above passage, which actually refers to the immortality of Zeus, could also be reapplied to Jesus. Look at the first and third lines and replace Zeus with Jesus: "They fashioned a tomb for thee [O Jesus], O holy and high one...But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever...")

Again in Acts 17:28, Paul states, "Certain of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring'." Paul was quoting from line 4 of the opening lines of Aratus' Phaenomena:
From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed;
full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men;
full is the sea and the havens thereof; always we all have need of Zeus.
For we are also his offspring...

In 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul quoted Menander when he stated, "Evil communications corrupt good manners".

In fact, Paul would have us believe that even Jesus himself quoted the Greek philosopher-poets. In Acts 9:5, during Saul's visionary conversion experience on the road to Damascus, Jesus is quoted as saying to him:
"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads."
The statement, "It is hard for you to kick against the goads," always struck me as a rather unusual thing for Christ to have said, in part because when I first read it, I didn't understand what it meant. Besides, which, it struck me as rather unlike anything Jesus is recorded to have said in the Gospels, and therefore it seemed like it was a bit "out of character" for him to say that, in my opinion. It also doesn't appear in the Old Testament.

It turns out that this phrase was actually taken from an ancient pagan Greek proverb that predates the New Testament. The analogy of an animal kicking against the goads was used in pagan Greek literature to refer to a human being who was resisting the will of the gods. It is found first in Pindar's Odes, Pythia 2.94-5:
"It is best to take the yoke on one's neck and bear it lightly; kicking against the goads makes the path treacherous."
The phrase is also found in Euripides' Bacchae:
"I would sacrifice to the god rather than kick against his goads in anger, a mortal against a god."
It is found yet again in Aeschylus, Agamemnon, Line 1624:
"Do not kick against the goads lest you strike to your own hurt."
Reference: http://www.christianorigins.com/euripidesluke.html

It would appear that after his resurrection, Jesus found time to read the classics!

Could it not be that this is one / part of the reasons Saul / Paul was chosen?? - for his understanding of Greek philosophies??? & if he were anything but himself he may-well have not been selected??? Also, I'm quite certain Christ is more than capable of customizing Revelation for the best understanding of the individual...

As-for this; "Do not kick against the goads lest you strike to your own hurt." - What a great Greek proverb, isn't that funny how Truth is Universal & not confined to any one particular philosophy / Religious system??? - I appreciate the over-view you have given it, however I do think it has more far-reaching implications (as Universal Truth does), to me it seems to not only apply to the dangers of going against the Will of God / Gods, yet almost has a hint of a Freudian Slip type of thing... as-in 'Don't strike out / attack or abuse anyone / thing, least you revel your own pain / suffering & also multiply the manifestation of your negative / erroneous thoughts'... Which also just so happens to have been my understanding / personal experience of why some people do what they do...


For anyone who is interested in reading more on this subject, there are two very informative articles that goes into much further detail regarding Paul's dependence on Plato and other classical Greek philosophers. The first is an article by F.F. Powell entitled "Saint Paul's Homage to Plato", Highly recommended. Here is the link:

http://www.worldandi.com/newhome/pub...ril/mtpub2.asp

The above linked article explains how Paul drew from Plato's philosophy "when he described the church as Christ's body, the gifts of the Spirit, ecstatic utterances in worship, putting on righteousness as a garment, conscience as a guide, and love as the greatest of Christian virtues."

The second is a Paul-friendly article entitled "Plato, Philo, and Paul: The Influence of Platonic Thought on Paul's Theosophy", written by Jim Chapman:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ge=true&cat=34

(That's all I have for now. I'll be back with some new information in my next post!)

Alrighty then... :D - just remember; "Do not kick against the goads lest you strike to your own hurt." ;)

You're obviously a rather intelligent person & no-doubt that will serve you well, you could well be doing just fine despite the inequity & most probable the hypocrisy (no judgment intended here, more an observation) of what you focusing on here... - "What you focus on you become" / "What you focus on becomes reality".... "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear"...

[amaralsright]

There's a big difference between the Old Covenant (old Mosaic law) and the New Covenant (what Christ brought to us).

Yeah.. makes you wonder how God got the first one so wrong and why it took thousands of years - and the deaths of millions of people who couldn't be saved under the old covenant - before he came up with the new one.

Why make a covenant that you know (being all knowing) that people can't be saved under?

Or perhaps it's all just nonsense.

[yhwhschild]

No. They are not compatible.

Mosaic law has nothing to do with the new law Christ brought by His death on the cross.

There's a big difference between the Old Covenant (old Mosaic law) and the New Covenant (what Christ brought to us).


Question: "What is the New Covenant?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html

Question: "What is the Mosaic Covenant?"
http://www.gotquestions.org/Mosaic-covenant.html

Well this is the biggest lie ever told by Satan. I suggest that you do some research as what you have said is totally untrue.

For a start Yeshua could not bring in any new Laws as he would be condemned as a false prophet and condemned to death under the Law(Just like the Pharasees and those who follow the Talmud). Israel are told by Moses that anyone that teaches anything other than what was taught to them at Mt Sinai is a false prophet this is repeated more than once in the Torah.

Secondly, Yahweh states to both houses of Israel and Judah that the "Renewed" Covenant will be made with them and that the Torah of Yahweh will be placed in both their hearts and minds. This is said in Jer 31v31-34 and is also repeated in Issiah and Yahweh says that when it is placed their that they will still do them.

Yeshua backs this up and states that the Torah will not pass away and that heaven and earth will pass away before even the smallest letter or pen stroke from the Torah is taken away.

Again Yeshua states in Matthew

Mat 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Master, Master,ʼ shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of My Father in the heavens.
Mat 7:22 “Many shall say to Me in that day, ‘Master, Master, have we not prophesied in Your Name, and cast out demons in Your Name, and done many mighty works in Your Name?ʼ
Mat 7:23 “And then I shall declare to them, ‘I never knew you, depart from Me, you who work lawlessness!

Find out what Yeshua is refering to when he says that he does not know those who work lawlessness. If you use Strongs or BD/Thayers on the Greek word used for Lawlessness.

BDB/Thayers # 458 anomia {an-om-ee'-ah} from 459; TDNT - 4:1085,646; n f AV - iniquity 12, unrighteousness 1, transgress the law + 4060 1, transgression of the law 1; 15 1) the condition of without law 1a) because ignorant of it 1b) because of violating it 2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness

This comes from another word anomos

BDB/Thayers # 459 anomos {an'-om-os} from 1 (as a negative particle) and 3551; TDNT - 4:1086,646; adj AV - without law 4, transgressor 2, wicked 2, lawless 1, unlawful 1; 10 1) destitute of (the Mosaic) law 1a) of the Gentiles 2) departing from the law, a violator of the law, lawless, wicked.

If you see the word here it means that those who are lawless and follow lawlessness are those who do not follow the Mosiac law/Torah.

Both Yeshua and Yahweh are enfatic about this Yahweh states that when He gave the Torah at Mt Sinai to Israel that this was an EVERLASTING covenant and that when the promised Messiah comes He will not only bring Israel back to the True Teaching of the Torah but that all the nations also will be ruled under the Torah(the 1000 yrs reign of the Messiah - see Issiah).
Yeshua states that the Torah will not pass away until all is fulfilled as well which means that it still has to be in place so no matter what you think Paul states on the matter both Yeshua and Yahweh states that the Torah stands for eternity. The only thing that was removed was the sacrificial laws as they were made obsolete through the sacrifice of Yeshua, but Issiah mentions that the offerings will be reinstated during the reign of the Messiah as it mentions the Princes of Egypt giving offerings in the Temple to Yahweh during that time period.

Again in Revelations Yeshua is speaking to the 7 churches in asia. He commends every church for their "WORKS" if you find out what this word refers to in Scriptual terms you will find as James refers to in his epistle that works means the act of carrying out or obeying the Torah/Law. If Yeshua had come and changed the Torah/Law(which he couldn't do anyway) why would he let his churches carry on keeping the old law if he had instituted a new one. He didn't no he commended them for their dilligence in doing so but found fault in other matters.

Yeshua's ministry as the promised Messiah was and is to return the children of Israel to the Torah and give them a greater understanding of it. He was also there to prepare a way through his sacrifice for that Torah to be placed in their hearts as well as their heads through the anointing of Yahweh's Spirit and also to pay the price for willful sin that the blood of bulls and goats could only cover. There is no scripture in the Tenakh (Torah and Prophets) that states that the Torah will be done away with but there are 1000s that state that the Torah is for ever and it is Yahwehs word and it will not return to Him void.

If Paul stated that the Torah was now done away with(which he doesn't) then he would be a false apostle. Because of modern christianity and its beliefs that Paul has stated that this is why Paul is rejected by so many Torah beleiving children of Yahweh and the 7 churches of Asia Minor as well.

[yhwhschild]

Yeah.. makes you wonder how God got the first one so wrong and why it took thousands of years - and the deaths of millions of people who couldn't be saved under the old covenant - before he came up with the new one.

Why make a covenant that you know (being all knowing) that people can't be saved under?

Or perhaps it's all just nonsense.

Or its just that modern chrristianity and its teachings have nothing to do with the origional scripture and it is really just the whore of Babylon and its Harlot daughters.

Because if you read the Scriptures there is nothing in them that back up their teachings.

[quetzalcoatl]

Yeah.. makes you wonder how God got the first one so wrong and why it took thousands of years - and the deaths of millions of people who couldn't be saved under the old covenant - before he came up with the new one.

Why make a covenant that you know (being all knowing) that people can't be saved under?

Or perhaps it's all just nonsense.


I know what ya saying... - just think that sometimes what is good the the goose, is good for the gander can quite often be subject to change, through environment / climate, population, advancement in learning etc... & hey, who knows, perhaps even a change in Gods mind / heart...


Would make infinitely more sense in a paradigm of the Kingdom of God / Gods being a community of beings whom were originally 'guarding / looking out' for a Special seed on Earth (Gods chosen people) then later decided to expand this covenant to include everyone...


Guess that's part & parcel of the 'rift' between Gods & mere mortals... - they know & we don't...


Being merely my speculative opinion, of-course...


The fact that Paul does not discuss Jesus' parables - which are rich and fascinating, tells me that Paul really did not know anything about Jesus, and or he was sent as an Agent of Influence to `turn' the budding Christian church. What a load of trippery and baggage Paul put on the New Testament. Putting women down, forcing women out of the priestly class and power structure of the church, etc. The end was that Mary Magdalene became stereotyped as a `whore'.


God help you... "what a load of trippery & baggage Paul put on the New Testament??" - The Pauline Epistles is the NT or a good half of it @ least...


In regards to contributing to an end result of Mary being stereotyped as a whore, well apparently this idea first came about with Pope Gregory the Great;


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/marymagdalene.shtml


Mary Magdalene is mentioned in each of the four gospels in the New Testament, but not once does it mention that she was a prostitute or a sinner. At some point Mary Magdalene became confused with two other women in the Bible: Mary, the sister of Martha, and the unnamed sinner from Luke's gospel (7:36-50) both of whom wash Jesus' feet with their hair. In the 6th Century, Pope Gregory the Great made this assumption official by declaring in a sermon that these three characters were actually the same person: Mary Magdalene, repentant saint. The Catholic Church did later declare that Mary Magdalene was not the penitent sinner, but this was not until 1969. After several centuries, the reputation still lingers.


Also considering the early Churches 'tendencies', per-se, this probably wouldn't have helped much either... Luke 8:2; "And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils"


As-for the rest, I've heard this before from a few, 'less-than reputable sources'... Basically I reckon twas just a different time, a different way then... - a couple of scriptures calling for women to respect men or to learn in silence etc... doesn't exactly equate Paul to "putting women down" or being oppressive, nor contributing to the possible mis-labeling of Mary Magdalene...


http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm


Paul commended the ministry of a woman who brought his letter to the Roman Christians (Romans 16:1,2). Phoebe was a servant of the church at Cenchrea. "Servant" may refer to a deacon, a term that sometimes designated administrative responsibility in the Early Church. In his epistles, however, Paul most frequently applied the term to any minister of God’s Word, including himself (1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21). He also called Phoebe a "succorer" or "helper" of many (Romans 16:2); this term technically designated her as the church’s patron or sponsor, most likely the owner of the home in which the church at Cenchrea was meeting. This entitled her to a position of honor in the church.


If Paul followed ancient custom when he praised Priscilla, he may have mentioned her before her husband Aquila because of her higher status (Romans 16:3,4). Elsewhere we learn that she and her husband taught Scripture to another minister, Apollos (Acts 18:26). Paul also listed two fellow apostles, Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7). Although Junia is clearly a feminine name, writers opposed to the possibility that Paul could have referred to a female apostle,10 suggest that Junia is a contraction for the masculine Junianus. This contraction, however, never occurs, and more recently has been shown to be grammatically impossible for a Latin name like Junia. This suggestion rests not on the text itself, but entirely on the presupposition that a woman could not be an apostle.


Elsewhere Paul referred to the ministry of two women in Philippi, who, like his many male fellow ministers, shared in his work for the gospel there (Philippians 4:2,3). Because women typically achieved more prominent religious roles in Macedonia than in most parts of the Roman world,11 Paul’s women colleagues in this region may have moved more quickly into prominent offices in the church (cf., Acts 16:14,15).

[quetzalcoatl]

For a start Yeshua could not bring in any new Laws as he would be condemned as a false prophet and condemned to death under the Law(Just like the Pharasees and those who follow the Talmud).

Wow... - that would've been a tragedy, if it went down like dat... :rolleyes:

Couldn't resist... :D

[yhwhschild]

Wow... - that would've been a tragedy, if it went down like dat... :rolleyes:

Couldn't resist... :D

I sometimes think that Paul was meant to write what he was supposed to write what he wrote or he was the person Yeshua spoke about that would come after him. This would make sense as 99% of Christianity follow the teachings of Paul rather than the teachings of Yeshua.

I also listened to a recent radio interview on Red Ice where the guy being interviewed stated that there is evidence to suggest that Paul was really the historian Josephus. Can't remember which though.

[yhwhschild]

Hey guys we also do not know how much the "New Testament" writings were changed to fit in with the teachings and ideology of the roman church as they were translating and copying them.

We certainly know that rome didn't approve of womans status in the church and Judaism has never or certainly didn't have a problem in the OT era as they had prophetesses and other very important roles in the Torah.

[drakul]

Quetzalcoatl -
God help you... "what a load of trippery & baggage Paul put on the New Testament??" - The Pauline Epistles is the NT or a good half of it @ least...

We KNOW that - Paul's domination of the NT and the relegation of the teachings of the Master to a virtual sidenote has been an on-going topic of this thread.

In regards to contributing to an end result of Mary being stereotyped as a whore, well apparently this idea first came about with Pope Gregory the Great

You skipped a few hundred years and left out some significant Paulisms. Paul forced women out of the church hierarchy:

A verse in Paul's letter to Timothy[1 Tim 2:12 KJV] is often used as the main biblical authority for prohibiting women from becoming ordained clergy and or holding certain other positions of ministry and leadership in Christianity—solely on the basis of gender, though Paul's authorship of this letter is debated. The Letter to Timothy is also often used by many churches to deny women a vote in church affairs, reject women from serving as teachers of adult Bible classes, prevent them from serving as missionaries, and generally disenfranchises women from the duties and privileges of church leadership.[45]

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

—1 Timothy 2:11-14, KJV


Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[quetzalcoatl]

We KNOW that - Paul's domination of the NT and the relegation of the teachings of the Master to a virtual sidenote has been an on-going topic of this thread.

Well excuse me... - funny how exception is often taken when things are seen out of context... ;) - although in all fairness, I still can't accept the statement of "What a load of trippery & baggage Paul put on the NT"... - get some perspective, will ya... ;)

You skipped a few hundred years and left out some significant Paulisms. Paul forced women out of the church hierarchy:

A verse in Paul's letter to Timothy[1 Tim 2:12 KJV] is often used as the main biblical authority for prohibiting women from becoming ordained clergy and or holding certain other positions of ministry and leadership in Christianity—solely on the basis of gender, though Paul's authorship of this letter is debated. The Letter to Timothy is also often used by many churches to deny women a vote in church affairs, reject women from serving as teachers of adult Bible classes, prevent them from serving as missionaries, and generally disenfranchises women from the duties and privileges of church leadership.[45]

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

—1 Timothy 2:11-14, KJV


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

Aghhh... look Paul wrote what he wrote customized to his time & conditions / circumstances etc... 1 Corinthians 9:22 :- To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. - it's quite clear he in-fact had helpers / servants in his ministry, whom just so happen to be female;

Romans 16:2 :- That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

Philippians 4:2-3 :- I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

As for the passage in question; 1 Tim 2:12 :- But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. It may sound a bit harsh, yet its just a different time, different tongue - I take "suffering not" as a positive thing, &/or basically just 'good-ish' advice for his era, where generally women weren't educated & illiteracy was rife...

If people aren't able to see it for what it is; & change with the times etc, then that's their problem quite frankly, don't blame Paul for something written around 2,000 years ago, that was quite valid for the time... Also, if you don't like it - & are unable to 'separate the wheat from the chaff' - no-one's exactly forcing it down ya throat... so go find something that does resonate with ya, hopefully something you can focus on the positives with... - it will surely do wonders for your well-being... ;)

[amaralsright]

As for the passage in question; 1 Tim 2:12 :- But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. It may sound a bit harsh, yet its just a different time, different tongue - I take "suffering not" as a positive thing, &/or basically just 'good-ish' advice for his era, where generally women weren't educated & illiteracy was rife...

You got to love how the self-sufficient Bible constantly needs interpreting.

It's not enough to believe the bible.. we have to believe people's interpretation of the bible.

Total madness.

[quetzalcoatl]

You got to love how the self-sufficient Bible constantly needs interpreting.

It's not enough to believe the bible.. we have to believe people's interpretation of the bible.

Total madness.

Oh is that right, is it???

Well, I'd say ya ain't gotta believe shit mate... - tis quite simple really, juz dun believe... ;)

Total madness aight! :p

[amaralsright]

Oh is that right, is it???
Yeah that's right... thousands of sects telling us we must believe their interpretation of the self-sufficient bible.

Well, I'd say ya ain't gotta believe shit mate...
I know.

However, many of these sects say I have the choice to believe their interpretation or burn forever.

It is madness.

Your modern slant on St Paul's instruction for women to keep quiet is an interpretation completely exterior to scripture.

I just thought it was worth noting.

[drakul]

Quetzalcoatl - As for the passage in question; 1 Tim 2:12 :- But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. It may sound a bit harsh, yet its just a different time, different tongue - I take "suffering not" as a positive thing, &/or basically just 'good-ish' advice for his era, where generally women weren't educated & illiteracy was rife...

If people aren't able to see it for what it is; & change with the times etc, then that's their problem quite frankly, don't blame Paul for something written around 2,000 years ago, that was quite valid for the time..

You are missing the entire point. Did Jesus say that about women or did Paul???

IOW PAUL is creating his own version of `Christianity'. He quotes nothing from Jesus to justify his position forcing women out of the priesthood.

[amaralsright]

You are missing the entire point. Did Jesus say that about women or did Paul???

IOW PAUL is creating his own version of `Christianity'. He quotes nothing from Jesus to justify his position forcing women out of the priesthood.

Paul quotes nothing from Jesus.. period!

(Except perhaps some words from the last supper).

That's really strange seeing as Jesus was a man with a message.

[drakul]

Paul quotes nothing from Jesus.. period!

(Except perhaps some words from the last supper).

That's really strange seeing as Jesus was a man with a message.

Yes you are right. Jesus was the man with THE message.

Perhaps Paul's agenda was to Judaize Christianity? He used his influence to force women out of the priesthood, which would make it more like the Jewish faith. Jews did not have women Rabbis/teachers.

[kasalt]

Do you notice Paul almost never quotes any of Jesus words or teachings??? Strange. No it's all about PAUL and Paulisms. For example, Paul puts women and slaves back in their place. :(

Perhaps it would be helpful to post more of his quotes on those issues. First, slavery:(Ephesians 6:5-8)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

(1 Timothy 6:1-5)
"Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honour, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties.
Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth."
Paul's teachings on women:(1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
"Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

(1 Timothy 6:2-5)
"Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty."
It may sound a bit harsh, yet its just a different time, different tongue - I take "suffering not" as a positive thing, &/or basically just 'good-ish' advice for his era, where generally women weren't educated & illiteracy was rife...

If people aren't able to see it for what it is; & change with the times etc, then that's their problem quite frankly, don't blame Paul for something written around 2,000 years ago, that was quite valid for the time...

The thing is, how much of the Bible would you say was written for the times (2000+ years ago), and is therefore no longer valid today? All of it, or just some of it? And who decides which parts get disregarded and when?

Slavery has largely been gotten rid of in today's world--and I can't say that Paul's teachings deserve any credit for that. Yet there are still some churches who, for example, consider it sinful for women to cut their hair at all, based on Paul's words.

Times have changed, but Paul's words haven't. Does that mean the Word of God must be changed to suit the times?

[drakul]

Times have changed, but Paul's words haven't. Does that mean the Word of God must be changed to suit the times?

Good question.

But if you look at how high women ranked with Jesus in the Gospels, how he always stood up for them, how women were a part of his inner circle, for example - Mary Magdalene was the one who saw the risen Christ and told the disciples. Therefore Paul's RE-enslavement of women AND slaves was actually a step BACK even for those times. It has taken us 2,000 years to even begin to recover from what Paul did to the Christian church.

Think about it - it is the WOMAN who gives birth. She is closest to Creation. It is MEN who go to war and kill. So who is closer to GOD? Surely the WOMAN is at least as spiritual as the man if not more so. Therefore women should be up in the pulpit teaching and ministering on an equal basis with men. But in most churches you don't find this. In the Catholic church not at all. And that is one reason why the Vatican is a sick entity. Always has been. Look what they did to women during the Inquisition and the witch hunts.

[dedicate]

Originally Posted by kasalt

Times have changed, but Paul's words haven't. Does that mean the Word of God must be changed to suit the times?

Good question. ---

Definitely. I'm glad you used the word "suit" because I'm going for an analogy. Like cloths, Man is not made for religion, but religon for man. Who said that? When your cloths become worn-out, out-of-date,, or you have out-grown them,, why would you continue to wear them? Same with religion.

I'm expecting a new dispensation very soon,, a complete turning over of the soil. The way religion is today! Bow to Mecca 5 times a day!,, no sex before marriage, "Word of God".. all these things like cloths that don't FIT! God the Supreme Taylor is taking measurements right now! And He's going to make a lot of cuts.

[kasalt]

I'm glad you used the word "suit" because I'm going for an analogy. Like cloths, Man is not made for religion, but religon for man. Who said that?

Jesus said something similar:
"The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." (Mark 2:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+2:27&version=KJV))
When your cloths become worn-out, out-of-date,, or you have out-grown them,, why would you continue to wear them? Same with religion.
Jesus told them this parable: "No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will pull away from the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, 'The old is better.' " (Luke 5:36-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%205:36-39&version=NIV); cf. Matthew 9:16-17 and Mark 2:21-22)

[quetzalcoatl]

Yeah that's right... thousands of sects telling us we must believe their interpretation of the self-sufficient bible.


I know.

However, many of these sects say I have the choice to believe their interpretation or burn forever.

It is madness.

Ahhhh... if ya dun fuckin' believe, it ain't a problem then is it...

Your modern slant on St Paul's instruction for women to keep quiet is an interpretation completely exterior to scripture.

I just thought it was worth noting.

LMAO! right... well if ya gave the book a read... yet ya didn't even bothered yourself, did ya?? - (not that it bothers me... :p)

Last one for you. ;)

You are missing the entire point. Did Jesus say that about women or did Paul???

IOW PAUL is creating his own version of `Christianity'. He quotes nothing from Jesus to justify his position forcing women out of the priesthood.

Reckon Paul is pretty bloody fair / balanced & tolerant compared to the OT (especially considering the factors of his time)... Also, off the top of my head I can think of @ least one Gnostic / Apocryphal text - apparently attributed to Jesus - which doesn't quite paint women in a favorable light... Over-all, I basically see progression / evolution of ideals in the Word / Law...

Much of this stems from the teaching of the creation of Man / Genesis - where Adam was first created & then, there-after, from him Women were derived... & also the instigation of the betrayal in the Garden by Eve...

Also, here is Jesus' judgment of a certain prophetess, of a certain church for leading astray His servants into fornication etc...

Rev 2:22

Don't worry - go about your own ways... - tis a one seasoned universe filled with lovey-dovey Gods... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: It'll happen... ;) - each to our own individual works... but hey, if we'd only done what Jesus & Paul gone told our asses to do...

The thing is, how much of the Bible would you say was written for the times (2000+ years ago), and is therefore no longer valid today? All of it, or just some of it? And who decides which parts get disregarded and when?

Slavery has largely been gotten rid of in today's world--and I can't say that Paul's teachings deserve any credit for that. Yet there are still some churches who, for example, consider it sinful for women to cut their hair at all, based on Paul's words.

Times have changed, but Paul's words haven't. Does that mean the Word of God must be changed to suit the times?

Well it just takes a bit of crucial discernment & the application some practical common sense... - if you, the church or modern ministers / pastors are unable to do this... - then you / they just can't, simple... For example, you claim / sight the Word of God, why couldn't it have been - when referred as such in scripture - a description of certain passages / teachings & the body of work in general etc... & less a literal interpretation, or more Word inspired by God, in certain places...

To me it seems rather simple, when practical common sense / discernment is applied... - I really think over-analyzing & wrongly placing too much emphasis in places doesn't exactly help...

[amaralsright]

LMAO! right... well if ya gave the book a read... yet ya didn't even bothered yourself, did ya?? - (not that it bothers me... :p)

I've read the Bible many many times.

Modern interpretations about what Paul really meant are quite funny.

Paul says what he says.. the Bible is supposed to be self sufficent.

But the world is full of people who want to tell you "what the bible really means is..."

You are one of them it seems.

[quetzalcoatl]

I've read the Bible many many times.

Modern interpretations about what Paul really meant are quite funny.

Paul says what he says.. the Bible is supposed to be self sufficent.

But the world is full of people who want to tell you "what the bible really means is..."

You are one of them it seems.

Yep, tis funny alright... :D - guess that's part of the magic / mystery; it means what it means varying from individual to individual... as-for it being self sufficient, could well be in a sense of a 'correct perception', per-se... :confused:

Also I'm not trying to convince ya of anything, silly... - stop being point-lessly antagonistic & deluded... I'm merely sharing what it means to me, of-course! take it or leave it, no pressure... I'd say its all in the eye of the be-holder, my opinion isn't any-more valid than yours, they're just different - however, I just seem to be more readily accepting / tolerant of the conflicting diversity of our views... ;) My advice, you could always try proving yourself right (if it must be a 'right or wrong' thing) as opposed to setting-out with trivial crap to prove another wrong etc... - might receive a better reception from people... ;)

Other-than-that, I'm done with randomly digressing off on what seems like argumentative tangents...

Your modern slant on St Paul's instruction for women to keep quiet is an interpretation completely exterior to scripture.

I just thought it was worth noting.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 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. 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.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

[1964]

Someone wrote somewhere that the Bible and other holy books, were written not by the ones everybody knows, but by insiders who knew the game and where behind the events occurring at that time. Maybe our friend Paul was just a tool.

I hope you won't mind my interjecting.

I've heard this idea before, what you said here, and I know firsthand that it's not possible. I was originally raised in the Roman Catholic church. Many years later, after I'd left the Catholic church, I considered joining one of the Protestant churches - but I didn't. There's a reason I denounced the Roman Catholic church, which is the same reason I never joined any of the Protestant denominations - that reason being the Holy Bible, which is the Word of God. Since the Roman Catholic church doesn't encourage its members to read and study the Scriptures for themselves, it was only after I left the Catholic church that I started to study the Holy Bible on my own. And even at a fairly young age, I could already see it quite clearly, how the Word of God is clear that we ought not follow Catholicism, nor Protestantism, since these are not Christ's true Church.

Then there's the matter of politics, which a person can still follow, even if one rejects Catholicism, Protestantism, and all of the other false religions of the world. And in that regard, Christ was clear once again - give to God what belongs to God, and give to Caesar (to the government) what belongs to the government. So for the sake of doing what's right, give to the government what rightfully belongs to the government - but it is God alone Who God's people must follow.

So many people are making the same dangerous, tragic mistake - they're falling for all sorts of lies, coming from all kinds of different sources, because they haven't bothered to first arm themselves with the truth. There's no way to do an honest reading and study of the Word of God, and then come away believing that God has commanded His people they should either follow Catholicism; Protestantism; paganism; atheism; politics; and of course not Satanism, or any of the so-called secret societies of the world; etc.

The only way I can fathom for anyone to come away believing that this is true is for people not to have properly read and studied the Holy Bible in the first place. No, there's one other possibility - there are those people who intentionally pervert what is written in the Holy Bible, so as to intentionally deceive others.

The Holy Bible couldn't have been written by the elite, and the dark powers of this world. It's not possible, when it's the Holy Bible that identifies them, warns people against them, and then tells people precisely what they must do in order to have the victory over them. And only in Christ will anyone have the victory.

[amaralsright]

it was only after I left the Catholic church that I started to study the Holy Bible on my own. And even at a fairly young age, I could already see it quite clearly, how the Word of God is clear that we ought not follow Catholicism, nor Protestantism, since these are not Christ's true Church.

Who compiled the Bible?

Who decided which books were included in the book you think is the word of God?

Who decided what God's word was?

Who decided that the Gospel of Thomas was not the word of God?

If the word of God is clear then why are there thousands of sects trying to tell us what it really means in contradictory ways?

You live in a very blinkered world if you think the Bible carries no baggage.

[quetzalcoatl]

Who decided that the Gospel of Thomas was not the word of God?

I dunno... who??? :confused: - considering these weren't discovered until 1945, might have something to do with it...

Also;

I tend to agree with that statement you quoted 1964 on... - there does seem to be somewhat of a contrast from Christ's teachings compared to mans interpretation there-of, which you get @ Church, yet there's a good solid chance many of them (in Church) are still way better than me, morally... :eek:

You live in a very blinkered world if you think the Bible carries no baggage.

Well of-course it does... think you'll find those whom deny this (here @ least) few & far between... yet what entity or thing doesn't?? - scrutinize anything under a 'micro-scope' & you'll find polarity... Just doubt that's what it's all about (as-in accepting / focusing-on mankind's possible perversion of the Word)... Also, in a general sense there's people out there that'll jump on anything to dis-credit & drag it down... & alot of the time it is to validate / elevate themselves, it's sometimes a matter of pointing out flaws else-where to make themselves feel better, more important or less flawed than the other... - what you focus on will define you, if ya can't say anything nice, why defile yourself?? - you shud say nothing... there are many good teachings in the Bible, I'd recommend, for your sake, focusing on something positive... Not meaning to de-rail here; I really do struggle with things / concepts like these; Original Sin / Born into Sin & all the guilt / baggage associated there-of; gender based inequality; & also condemnation to ever-lasting hell... - however, it may be down to my ignorance, wrong interpretation etc...

You know what I reckon tis all about - it ain't about 'right or wrong', correct interpretation VS mis-conception, irrefutable "Word of God" VS inspired through man, simply good advice from Gods; grand generationally condemning mistake of partaking of forbidden fruit VS 'knew you'd do it', now on the journey to know good & evil - it's about one day ALL of us (as one united in equality race) finally doing & organically choosing through free-will the higher ideals of DOING GOOD... - that's what it's always been about... everything in-between has quite possibly been necessary for development... - it's always been as simply as "Love thy nieghbor"...

I'd just suggest not looking @ it as the irrefutable 'Word of God', to be strictly followed to a tea, per-se... as-in don't ya think The Word of God could be made to be completely / utterly & magically instantly understood by all man-kind (which of-course includes women)??? ya see the variable polarities of individual interpretations are probably part of the learning... - I see it more as a basic guidelines / rules for social / psychological development... - I'd even go as far as to say; that's part of the 'problem' (or just another bump on the road / journey), being mans in-ability to see the forest for the trees / focusing on which is the 'correct / right' interpretation, among many...

Why can't we all just grow-up - & possibly even 'become as Gods', as it were... - which might mean (or be more beneficial) becoming 'regressed' back to child-hood, for some... Just don't be surprised if one day someone comes gravitationally defining flying through the clouds & says, again... something like' "it WAS said...." - other-than-that, it might just be too late & we're all screwed (or wont be protected / saved from the elements) by the Book of Revelations manifesting... - then again, there's the variations of literal VS symbolic interpretations... see what mean??? what a great ride! :D

I dunno... what should we do then??? :confused: - although das more rhetorical, believe it or not, I'm tryna ween off / outa this thread, since it doesn't seem very fruitful, or beneficial to the growth of understanding...

[amaralsright]

I dunno... who??? :confused: - considering these weren't discovered until 1945, might have something to do with it...

Really.

You need to learn more about early christianity and the gnostics.

Who decided that the Gospel of Thomas was not to be in the New Testament or that the Didache shouldn't be there either?

Or do you think the Bible compiled itself.

[quetzalcoatl]

Really.

You need to learn more about early christianity and the gnostics.

Ahhha! - probably... :D don't be shy to enlighten us...

Who decided that the Gospel of Thomas was not to be in the New Testament or that the Didache shouldn't be there either?

Or do you think the Bible compiled itself.

My God...

Take the English translation of the Authorized King James Version, for example, which begun in 1604 & was completed in 1611 - why couldn't these Gnostic texts, dug-up in the sands of Egypt in 1945 have been left out of later compilations (EG; NIV) because it was rejected - falling to 'unapproved' apocryphal status - or simply left out through rigid conformity, perhaps... :confused:

Just the way ya say it was left out as-if it some-sort of age-old conspiracy to keep it out from the start etc... :rolleyes:

[amaralsright]

Ahhha! - probably...

No.. definitely.

Really, go and find out the history of the book you love so much.

[quetzalcoatl]

No.. definitely.

Really, go and find out the history of the book you love so much.

Well, ya see das where ya fail... :( - I've only shared my interpretations of this book - I do however, reckon it quite a good & in many ways beneficial read, love it tho'??? - I dun think so! :p

Maybe one day you'd be gracious enough to bless us / me with your in-sights... - must be quite a burden, knowing I know nothing, since you have all the historical facts etc??? :confused:

Good Luck! - I'm out... :)

[amaralsright]

Bye.

All the history of the Bible you could ever want is on the internet.

But you're not really interested I can tell.

[kasalt]

I've heard this idea before, what you said here, and I know firsthand that it's not possible. I was originally raised in the Roman Catholic church. Many years later, after I'd left the Catholic church, I considered joining one of the Protestant churches - but I didn't. There's a reason I denounced the Roman Catholic church...that reason being the Holy Bible, which is the Word of God. Since the Roman Catholic church doesn't encourage its members to read and study the Scriptures for themselves, it was only after I left the Catholic church that I started to study the Holy Bible on my own.

The canon of the New Testament was not established until the later half of the 4th century--well after the Christian Church had been Romanized. This subject has already been dealt with on this thread. The first Christian to ever produce a canon of the New Testament that matches the list we have today was not until the year 367 AD. It was compiled by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. Later, various Roman Church synods confirmed Athanasius' list, and THAT'S why you have the book you know of as the New Testament today.

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

[quetzalcoatl]

Bye.

All the history of the Bible you could ever want is on the internet.

But you're not really interested I can tell.

Yes, yes... - you can tell a lot, can't ya??? :rolleyes: keheheh... :p

[amaralsright]

Yes, yes... - you can tell a lot, can't ya??? :rolleyes: keheheh... :p

You're not interested in the fact that the Roman Church compiled the book you call the Bible?

I know you're not.

Because it would make your head go all woo-woo.

"How can this be?"

[quetzalcoatl]

You're not interested in the fact that the Roman Church compiled the book you call the Bible?

I know you're not.

Because it would make your head go all woo-woo.

"How can this be?"

"Coz you're drug-fuct???" :p - God I hope your not just regular fuct... :p

Yeah, just can't get my head round that one... LMAO!!! :p

As world shatteringly profound that was... :rolleyes: - have ya anything else??? like what do you call it n shit?? :p

[raphael]

"Coz you're drug-fuct???" :p - God I hope your not just regular fuct... :p

Yeah, just can't get my head round that one... LMAO!!! :p

As world shatteringly profound that was... :rolleyes: - have ya anything else??? like what do you call it n shit?? :p

this thread is about St. Paul?
shall we discuss his origin?

how about what he wrote about jeSuS...
the closest thing to an eyewitness that the flock has...and he says nothing of the LITERAL god called jeSuS, that the flock promote, and threaten us with?
It is your way or hell and damnation awaits?
If I had my way...I would ban every punk christian that uttered those words.

Eventually they wouldn't have a forum to promote their crap.
They would be off in the corner sharing cooking recipes and bible babble.

Do you have proof of your THEORY?

Your jeSuS is a THEORY.
Your jeSuS was a serpent at one time...lots of proof of that.
Do YOU have any proof he was a man?

NO PROOF
as a science experiment we would need to call off the entire RUSE.
give it up...

IGNORANCE is NOT bliss.
it is harmful to the soul.

amen

[quetzalcoatl]

this thread is about St. Paul?
shall we discuss his origin?

Yeah, if dem trolls back-right-off a brother... :D

Tis all good, no probs, ya can't troll a troll... ;) - yes, back on topic, tis a great idea... :)

how about what he wrote about jeSuS...
the closest thing to an eyewitness that the flock has...and he says nothing of the LITERAL god called jeSuS, that the flock promote, and threaten us with?

Yes, do tell...

It is your way or hell and damnation awaits?
If I had my way...I would ban every punk christian that uttered those words.

Guess das why you're not a MOD... :p - Also, your judgment is completely wrong & this is hypocritically off-tpoic... ;)

Eventually they wouldn't have a forum to promote their crap.
They would be off in the corner sharing cooking recipes and bible babble.

If you say so...

Do you have proof of your THEORY?

Not sure, do I have a theory?? - or just my interpretation... Besides, isn't "theory" the hallmark of lack of proof??? :confused:

Your jeSuS is a THEORY.
Your jeSuS was a serpent at one time...lots of proof of that.
Do YOU have any proof he was a man?

Probably...

NO PROOF
as a science experiment we would need to call off the entire RUSE.
give it up...

IGNORANCE is NOT bliss.
it is harmful to the soul.

amen

Hmmm... I have no idea... if ya say so... :confused:

[raphael]

I dun fully understand it all, yet... I just so happen to believe in Christ's teachings, believe he is the seed of God / Gods & that he will one day return, in a similar fashion he resurrected...




whatever...from what I can tell he only hands out demon seed and in a similar fashion ... that is why christ has spawned belligerent war mongering demons, willing to kill for him.

what a prince?
the prince of darkness has reigned since paul uttered his name.

amen

[drakul]

Paul does not discuss Jesus' teachings, even though they were available, because the TPTB wanted to gain control over the budding church and relegate true Christianity to a side note. Even so it is the 4 gospels which stand out in the Bible and it is Paul's 1/2 of the NT which is mostly a boring piece of uninspired crap that few read.

Would there be Christianity if the 4 gospels were removed from the Bible and we were left with Paul's letters?

[raphael]

Even so it is the 4 gospels which stand out in the Bible and it is Paul's 1/2 of the NT which is mostly a boring piece of uninspired crap that few read.

Would there be Christianity if the 4 gospels were removed from the Bible and we were left with Paul's letters?

You would have MORE unsubstantiated DOGMA lacking some critical evidence.......so please leave the 4 Gospels in the story be and discuss the following......

Here I present a summary of the galactic narrative turned into Bible Babel, that the ignorant religious PLEBES always ignore AND never ever want to discuss...

Below is a trinity of SUPERNOVAS or mini-Big-Bangs that occurred in the past, that SPEAK/SHOUT volumes about what is being VEILeD by EVIL that wishes to keep us in the 'dark'. :eek:

1/ Dec. 7 185 A.D. is the year Irenaneus makes his famous statement about there can only be 4 gospels.

It is clearly because they represent the Persian 4 Royal Stars that demarcate the 4 corners of the heavens...each star inhabiting one of the 4 famous constellations...the BULL, the LION, the EAGLE and the MAN.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/kachina2012/4RoyalStarsGalacticCross2-1.jpghttp://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/kachina2012/4RoyalStarsGoldenSpiral300px.jpg

#1 is FOMALHAUT in Aquarius or 11
#2 is ALDEBARAN in Taurus or 2
#3 is REGULUS in Leo or 5
#4 is ANTARES in Scorpio or 8
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/11258-dendera-zodiac-and-the-4-royal-stars/
And when you join these 4 fixed points, a.k.a. the 4 Royal Stars (known about since 3000 BC) ...we can form a CROSS in the heavens and fit the GOLDEN Spiral inside all 4 stars?
YES

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l280/kachina2012/Tarot52811.jpg

11 2 5 8

Please note the 'Pearl Harbour' date of Dec. 7th 185 AD = 127185 = 11 2 5 8 = CARD X of the TAROT
with a magical remainder of '7' left over?

2/ October 9 1604 AD is the date/year that Kepler recorded the SN1604.
1604 is also the year that King James commissioned a new bible to be penned, with a few changes, to assist in hunting down heretics and witches. :eek:
And '7' magical years later in 1611 the KJV1611 Bible was completed, published, and dispensed to the loyal judeao/christian sheeple...

3/ July 4th, 1054 AD is the date/year of my favorite SUPERNOVA.
I believe this supernova to be the smoking gun, that exposes the big FIB.
Note the date. 7/4/1054.
July 4th and 722 years later ... America is 'founded' in 1776.
But what if we look at these numbers reading right to left?
722 becomes 22/7 = geometric pi
And it can easily to shown how a middle ages symbol re: Holy Spirit = 22/7.
So what does the Holy Spirit have to with pi, and making us more 'perfect'?

And I love the sublime poetry offered by the observation that NOT ONLY DID THE EARTH GET HIT with a GAMMA RAY BURST in 1054 AD (confirmed by ice core samples)...but the creator alchemist/lord/god works in mysterious ways...and sometimes clues can be found if we 'reverse' the meSSage.

Thus SN1054 = 451 fahrenheit?
Sounds like a galactic baptism, does it not?

They have identified 16 RADIO frequencies inside the Milky Way.
These RADIO frequencies are part of the evolutionary process.
Believe it. ;)

What if the 'creation' is merely part of a 'fireworks' display, with 'timed' explosions?
If the chinese can put on a fireworks display that is timed, helping to create quite the light and sound show display, then OBVIOUSLY, the creator alchemist can do it infinitely bigger and better.

amen

[drakul]

Raphael you are trolling again as per usual.

Why don't start your own thread and slap that tarot card on it? Afraid no one will come to your party?

[raphael]

Raphael you are trolling again as per usual.

Why don't start your own thread and slap that tarot card on it? Afraid no one will come to your party?

The fella who put together that tarot was a Freemason, a Golden Dawn member, and a 'Catholic'.
So dude how do ewe reckon I am on the wrong thread?

ALL SCHOLARS MAKE THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE 4 GOSPELS, the 4 EVANGELISTS AND THE BULL, THE LION, THE EAGLE AND THE MAN.
Are EWE a scholar or a reBLEATer dude?
WHY DO THEY FORM A GOLDEN SPIRAL IN THE HEAVENS?

It is OBVIOUSLY EWE as the ever vocal bible babbler who are clearly the troll in the here and now... You reside under the bridge of truth. :eek:

Please discuss those Persian 4 Royal Stars please?
Are you IGNORANT ABOUT HOW ANCIENT ASTRONOMY matches the bible babble?
So clearly YOU admit to be IGNORANT of astronomy?
YES

Explain why I am wrong...instead of just IGNORANTLY claiming I am trolling.
geesh

Forget it.
I AM here to stay. ;)

mesatan

[clachan]

Raphael you are trolling again as per usual.

Why don't start your own thread and slap that tarot card on it? Afraid no one will come to your party?

I heard he,d been kicked out of loads of other forums and this one just tollerates him for some reason.
When i see his posts i just bypass them,its always the same crap.
If he has a theory why doesn,t he just post it in black and white with an explanation ? But all he does is ask obscure questions in an attempt to make himself look clever.....bit of a nutter me thinks.