It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's with all the hate for Paul?

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid


"How ironic that man, in all his arrogance and intellectual pride, rejects the true wisdom revealed in God’s word."

I agree with that statement. It is the Wisdom that we should glean. But the modern church is not doing that. They are using "The Words" for exclusion and judging the lives of others and how to get rich. Like there is something wrong with you because you are poor. At one time, baptist churches use to be a sanctuary for the poor against the world. I know, cause I was baptized in one at 9yrs old in 1960. I remember when people came in clean but worn clothes. Now its a fashion show in the pews.




posted on May, 26 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I'm in total agreement. The modern concept of a church as a building with a pastor as the head has no semblance to the mystical body the ecclesia of Christ. I was saying that the word usually translated as church in the bible is ecclesia. I think we are saying the same thing



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Murgatroid

I know it's written "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself" but I just can't leave it:

What is it with the Christians in this place and their constant namesaying and petty ad homine vomit they spew at anyone able to expose their lies and doctrinal misconceptions?

How can you tell whether something is God's inspired word or not? That has always puzzled me. Humour me!


Speaking of Demon's and vomit,,



YOUR ROOTS ARE SHOWING,



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: zardust

Indeed, you are absolutely correct, ecclesia is very often (mis-) translated into church as if to in a clever way add scriptural support for their existence and claim to power. Jesus said to Peter: You are Peter, in your cliff (Gr. Petra) I will establish my congregation.

Petra is a strange place in Jordan where magnificent buildings have been carved into the rock:




According to Arab tradition, Petra is the spot where Moses (Musa) struck a rock with his staff and water came forth, and where Moses' brother, Aaron (Harun), is buried, at Mount Hor, known today as Jabal Haroun or Mount Aaron.
en.wikipedia.org...
The Wikipedia article doesn't have anything on what happened at Petra during the first couple of centuries AD.
edit on 26-5-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: claim to power



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
But the modern church is not doing that. At one time, baptist churches use to be a sanctuary for the poor against the world.

Christian Churches have been the targets of infiltration since the first ones started to form.

This is WHY it bares so little resemblance to the early Church.

The easiest way to bring down a house is to discredit it from within.


...the goal is to infiltrate it with their compromising philosophies and attempt to destroy the Church from within."

"What if there were people within the various Churches of God who covertly were guiding the members to slowly accept new ideas which are alien to the true faith and who were dedicated to destroying that faith at all costs?" JESUIT-JEDI MINDTRICKS

In the late forties the Illuminati wanted to infilitrate the churches because they understood the power of God within the structure of the church, and they had to find a way to infiltrate the church to break down that spiritual strength within the church, the power of the holy spirit that works within the church. They had to find a way to infiltrate that, and they wanted to bring the world into the churches so that the churches wouldn't be so strong spiritually. That was part of my father's job.

The method the illuminati used to infiltrate the organized church

The Vatican has infiltrated, or neutered and spayed, virtually every denomination and organization in Christendom. OPUS DEI-- War on Protestantism



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jesuslives4u

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Sremmos80 well many do not adhere to either but still find cause to disagree with the teachings of paul. So yes i meant christians but it seems that many have knowledge of the subject so i'm just trying to get all the angles.



Has anyone ever thought how Saul the Pharisee, persecutor of the christian faith all of a sudden becomes "Apostle Paul" follower of the christian faith?
No one ever called Paul an apostle. Paul himself calls himself an apostle! Its in the bible.

Paul never met Jesus (his story concerning his travel to Damascus is all we have concerning Saul's conversion to Christianity)
The other were hand picked and none of them were openly against Christ or his teachings like Paul was.

Paul was his own handpicked maiden. Its crazy that people think he was an apostle or that HIS invented church had anything to do with Jesus other than a "get out of jail free monopoly card" in the Roman Empire that was changing; do to Constantine and his foresight of what was coming. This being the transition from paganism to monotheism (ex pharisee ceasing the political moment to save his skin or make a buck). Paul positioned himself nicely.
edit on 26-5-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Jesuslives4u

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Sremmos80 well many do not adhere to either but still find cause to disagree with the teachings of paul. So yes i meant christians but it seems that many have knowledge of the subject so i'm just trying to get all the angles.



Has anyone ever thought how Saul the Pharisee, persecutor of the christian faith all of a sudden becomes "Apostle Paul" follower of the christian faith?


Well, apparently Paul invented the word Apostle, so who really knows what really happened. There were a few new words to surface in the first few centuries that snook into the bibles as if they had been there for ages. Words like Apostle (Paul) and Kyriakos (the Church). Kyriakos is a Greek word reflecting the highest authority in the Roman empire, the Curia, where the Emperor lead his senators doing the most important business in the Empire, which nowdays is just the same Curia only it's the Pope and his cardinals who meet to sort out doctrinal questions and important political subjects. Makes you think when they sing their kyrie eleison. Curious....

Finally; proof Paul spoke Greek. Hey Jesus did as well (speak and write it) or one could call it a form of Latin, also Aramaic and Hebrew. It is too bad Jesus never kept a diary or a daily journal; would have helped those future generations sort this mess out. Oh but Paul did his best to use/abuse warp the message.



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I am sorry, but it looks like I may have made a mistake. Paul did not actually invent the word apostle, according to Wikipedia ==> "The word "apostle" derives from the Ancient Greek word ἀπόστολος (apóstólos), meaning "messenger" or "envoy" that was formed from the prefix ἀπό- (apó-, "from") and root στέλλω (stéllō, "I send", "I depart")."

Sorry for mixing this up, what I meant was that Paul declared himself an apostle, more precicely the "apostle to the gentiles". He invented "Apostle to the Gentiles".

Romans 11:13 "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry"
edit on 26-5-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: Clearup



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: MOMof3
But the modern church is not doing that. At one time, baptist churches use to be a sanctuary for the poor against the world.

Christian Churches have been the targets of infiltration since the first ones started to form.

This is WHY it bares so little resemblance to the early Church.

The easiest way to bring down a house is to discredit it from within.


...the goal is to infiltrate it with their compromising philosophies and attempt to destroy the Church from within."

"What if there were people within the various Churches of God who covertly were guiding the members to slowly accept new ideas which are alien to the true faith and who were dedicated to destroying that faith at all costs?" JESUIT-JEDI MINDTRICKS

In the late forties the Illuminati wanted to infilitrate the churches because they understood the power of God within the structure of the church, and they had to find a way to infiltrate the church to break down that spiritual strength within the church, the power of the holy spirit that works within the church. They had to find a way to infiltrate that, and they wanted to bring the world into the churches so that the churches wouldn't be so strong spiritually. That was part of my father's job.

The method the illuminati used to infiltrate the organized church

The Vatican has infiltrated, or neutered and spayed, virtually every denomination and organization in Christendom. OPUS DEI-- War on Protestantism



....Uh huh. Okay then. *backs away slowly*
edit on 27-5-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Text Because of his father he enjoyed "freemanship" throughout the Roman Empire, meaning noone could touch him other than Roman officials superiour to him in rank. And as for Peter expressing love to this trojan worm; didn't Jesus order us to "Love thy enemy?" So, not only is your bootlicking Paul full of factual errors and mistakes, you are robbing Peter to Pay Paul here and show a display in misconceptions and arrogance towards Jesus' own words, which I assume should be superiour to Paul's cut and paste babble.

You are mistaken to infer that Paul's parents were somehow favored of the Romans. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was neither employed nor did he have favor with Rome. Saul's father was from the tribe of Benjamin that is true but to somehow besmirch this with the inference that he was tarnished with Syrian connectivity is disingenuous to say the least. Tarsus was not a municipium nor was it a colonia, like Philipi in Macedonia or Antioch in Pisidia but it was declared a free city (urbs libera) by Roman decree. Rome also declared that Antioch and Seleucia were also given this free status. These cities had the privileges of being governed by their own magistrates and were exempted from the occupation of a Roman garrison. It is uncertain exactly how Paul's grandfather became free born as a Jew but it is certain that his father was a free Jew from his birth.

At this time there were two major Jewish institutions available to the Jewish people and they were located in Jerusalem. These were the school of Hillel and that of Shammai. The school of Hillel was chosen for the lad named Saul at about the age of twelve or thirteen. It was not a public school but only for the children who were exceptionally gifted. It was primarily a school of future rabbis or other such associations. Hillel founded this school and it was his grandson, Gamaliel who was the head master at this time in Paul's life. There were a total of six Gamaliel's and this head master was Gamaliel the elder.

But this Gamaliel was more than just a teacher He was also the Nasi or president of the Jewish Sanhedrin. Saul sat under this Gamaliel and eventually became renowned as a most brilliant student. This is why it is believed that Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin and not only a member but was favored to be the next Nasi or president of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

As Jesus was tried in the Chamber Of Hewn Stone, the votes were counted and tallied. Do you know the count? Out of the seventy one Sanhedrin members, forty voted that all charges be dismissed against Jesus. But that still left 31 members that hated Jesus and would loved to have had Him stoned. How did Gamaliel vote? We shall never know. Was Saul on the Sanhedrin at this time?

If Saul was on the Sanhedrin at this time and had voted to stone this man Jesus then it is amazing that Jesus would strike this man with the power of God and Saul become converted. That would be the most phenomenal happening in my understanding. Could this have been the "Rest of The Story"? Now if Jesus can forgive this man Saul then tell me why can't you?



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Paulus himself stresses that he is a Benjaminite, and he also explains how his family, though being Jews, also enjoyed freemanship under Rome, Paulus is his Latin Surname. He would be treated like a Roman citizen because of this, this is why Paul can hold public speeches &c. And being a Roman citizen didn't simply mean that you live in a city, it meant you were what we n Norway used to call "borger" (do a search for Bourgeoisie) can influence politics and official matters and other had other benefits. We know from other sources that Saul Paulus' father was a well respected and wealthy Syrian Israelite of Benjamin tribe who had official duties in Rome.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
At this time there were two major Jewish institutions available to the Jewish people and they were located in Jerusalem. These were the school of Hillel and that of Shammai.


Oh dear, those two you mention there are the two main branches/schools of the Talmud. Hillel (his school is called the Babylonian Talmud) is mostly believed to be a rabbi who lived about a generation before Christ, but truth is Hillel and his Babylonian Talmud is referred to in Isaijah 14:12 where it says:

"How art thou fallen from heaven,
O Hillel, son of Babylon?"



You might know the verse in a different translation
edit on 27-5-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: lineshift



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Thought not a Christian, I do study parts of the bible on occasion and especially those words attributed to Jesus. I think some of that text is amazing and beyond genius and more. I really do.

I feel like the bible should be taken apart and made into two books. A history and A practical religion. I think the history gets in the way with modern day living and is full of hateful rhetoric.

Why I hate Paul, is that I think he took over Christianity. Not in a good sense. I get the feeling from his letters that he felt as if he was the equal to Jesus. He WAS Christianity. He was the new prophet. I feel like he hijacked Christianity and made it his religion. When you go to church 9 times out of 10 who is quoted. Paul, not Jesus. that's my take on it. Cut out Paul, revelations and the old testament and you've got some much better stuff.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
How many paul"s are well hated in religion and are in the story?


It was in poor taste that you did not clarify it was Paul the Apostle, which is how Paul "in the story" is usually referred to. The title for this thread was highly ambiguous, and you shouldn't have been so pompous with how you replied to the ambiguity that you (perhaps intentionally) created. Next time, how about you show a little decorum. The religious (since this thread was under religion) hating Ron Paul would not surprise me one bit, and it would definitely be a question worth exploring. And Ron Paul isn't ruled out with your opening post of "his part of the story" since you never know what Ron Paul might have said or done that could have caused such hatred.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
He was the walrus.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable
He was the walrus.


We have this thing about not dropping pithy one-liners on the forums. Maybe you can deign to expend a little more energy in this conversation. Or next time, not say anything at all.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: iosolomon

originally posted by: deadeyedick

How many paul"s are well hated in religion and are in the story?




It was in poor taste that you did not clarify it was Paul the Apostle, which is how Paul "in the story" is usually referred to. The title for this thread was highly ambiguous, and you shouldn't have been so pompous with how you replied to the ambiguity that you (perhaps intentionally) created. Next time, how about you show a little decorum. The religious (since this thread was under religion) hating Ron Paul would not surprise me one bit, and it would definitely be a question worth exploring. And Ron Paul isn't ruled out with your opening post of "his part of the story" since you never know what Ron Paul might have said or done that could have caused such hatred.
Would you like to name me some other pauls that are found in religion and well hated by many today. My op required critical thinking skills that was done so to show that when someone is misunderstood because lack of thought on the readers part it seems to be human nature to bash even when calls to be gentle were made. This premise goes hand in hand with the misunderstandings of paul and holds true to the theme of the style of writing in the bible. Knee jerk reactions that were made in a joking manner are still kneejerk. It is truely our nature to gang up on the weak but our own minds will be what fails us in the end for lack of faith. The majority of my post are made in a manner that requires thought and discernment unlike most that give much effort into steering one into thinking like them i would rather be dismissed than understood by those that judge too quickly. Tis a very narrow path.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing



Text Why I hate Paul, is that I think he took over Christianity. Not in a good sense. I get the feeling from his letters that he felt as if he was the equal to Jesus. He WAS Christianity. He was the new prophet. I feel like he hijacked Christianity and made it his religion. When you go to church 9 times out of 10 who is quoted. Paul, not Jesus. that's my take on it. Cut out Paul, revelations and the old testament and you've got some much better stuff.

Then perhaps what you should consider is to buy a bible of your choice and tear out all of the thirteen books of Paul or perhaps even the book of Hebrews and simply use whatever you wish to use. But then while you are at it you may also consider removing the entirety of Luke and Acts as Acts was credited to be one with Luke and speaks well of Paul in 129 mentions. Then you cannot tolerate Peter who speaks well of this scoundrel named Paul so remove his two books also. As you tear out Revelations you must tear out Johns other literature as well. Naturally you must also remove the 39 books of that awful Old Testament's Wicked God. Now that's much better isn't it? You now have your own religion with five books in your new bible. That will make you brilliant because then you can memorize your entire bible before you die and learn the truth.



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick
here are some points


The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin - seed from the line of David was required.


THE LORD'S SUPPER - INSTITUTED BY JESUS OR PAUL?

In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus institutes the Lord's Supper during the Passover meal (in John's gospel the Lord's Supper is not instituted - Jesus was dead by the time of the Passover meal).

In 1 Corinthians 11:23 the apostle Paul writes, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread..." Here Paul claims that he got the instructions for the Lord's Supper directly from Jesus (evidently from one of his many revelations). Paul writes these words about twenty years after Jesus' death, and had the church already been celebrating the Lord's Supper he certainly would have been aware of it and would have had no need to receive it from the Lord. Some apologists try to play games with the text to make it seem like Paul actually received the instructions from the other apostles, but one thing Paul stresses is that what he teaches he receives from no man (Galatians 1:11-12).

The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected. Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.".



Paul admits that he did not know Jesus during Jesus' lifetime. He also says that his gospel was not taught to him by any man (Galatians 1:11-12). All of Paul's theology is based on his own revelations, or visions. Like dreams, visions or hallucinations do not come from nowhere, but reveal what is already in a person's subconscious. It is very likely that the source of most of Paul's visions, and therefore most of his theology, is to be found in Mithraism.


a. In Matthew 27:5 Judas hangs himself.
b. In Acts 1:18 he bursts open and his insides spill out.
c. According to the apostle Paul, neither of the above is true. Paul says Jesus appeared to "the twelve" after his resurrection. Mark 14:20 makes it clear that Judas was one of the twelve.


THE UNCHANGEABLE LAW

According to Matthew 5:18, Jesus said that not the tiniest bit of the Law could be changed. However, in Mark 7:19 Jesus declares that all foods are clean, thereby drastically changing the Law.

The church tries to get around this obvious contradiction by artificially separating the Mosaic Law into the "ceremonial" law and the "moral" law, a separation which would have abhorred the Jews of Jesus' time. The Mark passage and similar ones like Acts 10:9-16 were added to accommodate the teaching of Paul regarding the Law (which was diametrically opposed to the teaching of Jesus on the Law) and to make the gospel palatable to the Gentiles.


In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells the eleven disciples to "go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

1. This is obviously a later addition to the gospel, for two reasons:

a. It took the church over two hundred years of fighting (sometimes bloody) over the doctrine of the trinity before this baptismal formula came into use. Had it been in the original gospel, there would have been no fighting.
b. In Acts, when people are baptized, they are baptized just in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). Peter says explicitly that they are to "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38).

2. This contradicts Jesus' earlier statement that his message was for the Jews only (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24). The gospels, and especially Acts, have been edited to play this down, but the contradiction remains. It was the apostle Paul who, against the express wishes of Jesus, extended the gospel (Paul's version) to the gentiles


THE APOSTLE PAUL'S CONVERSION

The Book of Acts contains three accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. All of three accounts contradict each other regarding what happened to Paul's fellow travelers.

1. Acts 9:7 says they "stood speechless, hearing the voice"
2. Acts 22:9 says they "did not hear the voice"
3. Acts 26:14 says "when we had all fallen to the ground"

Some translations of the Bible (the New International Version and the New American Standard, for example) try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase quoted above as "did not understand the voice..." However, the Greek word "akouo" is translated 373 times in the New Testament as "hear," "hears," "hearing" or "heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understand." In fact, it is the same word that is translated as "hearing" in Acts 9:7, quoted above. The word "understand" occurs 52 times in the New Testament, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word "akouo."

This is an example of Bible translators sacrificing intellectual honesty in an attempt to reconcile conflicting passages in the New Testament.
infidels.org...

There are many more contradictions that Paul is guilty of. He was a revisionist and IMO a tool of empire to mold what it could not stomp out. The gnostics and Constantine and later forms of empire have warped and twisted christianity so many times that it is not what it was. Christianity is a product of empire. Paul was absolutely instrumental to this evolving process of perversion and revision. I am left with the not so subtle argument that in order to understand the true message behind Christianity we must forgo all institutionalized approaches and stick to a more practical, objective and PERSONAL interpretation. IMO it should never have been formalized under anyones banner.

Paul, SAUL, was an instrument of that perversion and the resulting mess modern day spiritual seekers must overcome.

I say he is not as honest as it seems and I actually distrust much of what he has proposed. He is an agent of Rome that never gave up his mission. He just made it his own and committed entirely to its outcome. He couldnt defeat it, so he changed it. The pharisees and Rome, later constantine and the gnostics have been responsible for the continued perversion of this faith.

They and others made a systemized /proprietary mess out of these spiritual teachings for the convenience to empire. Paul was their guy.
----------
a reply to: digigeek

DUDE! great avatar! I just changed mine from that!

edit on 5 27 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
What in the world? Firstly, that is an entirely subjective idea on your part. Why do you think that "people" hate Paul the Apostle? To me, that's a much more profound and interesting question. What makes you think this at all??



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join