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.

 

Paul says Jesus is the Devil in Acts

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

paul is an alien.




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Okay, this is my last response.

The passage you quoted is referencing a man named "Jesus".

It is not referencing "Jesus, The Christ".



Still don't getting it? His name translates Elymas the Margician his surname is Bar-Jesus, which means Son of Jesus.

His full name was something along the lines of:
Elymah ha-Chartom bar Hoseanna bar David
edit on 5-2-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: lineshift



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Ah. The silence! Five minutes left, tick tock.....
edit on 5-2-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: .....



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
When someone threatens to destroy a temple that took a hundred years to build, and rebuild it in three days.

All bets are off. I knew the little devil of dragon tamer had it in him.
edit on 5-2-2015 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

i can't really do that, because the only thing i know about Griesbach, is that he published New Testament ( which i have not read) with commentary in the margins, and the Griesbach hypothesis or theTwo-Gospel hypothesis. which we all know a hypothesis is not a fact.

all i know of Tiscendorf is he found what is called the oldest known complete bible called Codex Sinaiticus, which from what i have read is the most heavily edited bibles ever published. if he was using this one, no wonder he agrees with you.

Scholz, i had never even heard of, had to look him up. appears to me, that he was more of a mathematician than a "Protestant theologian".

what you couldn't come up with more recent scholars, that you had to pull up old obscure ones that lived any where from 200 to 50years ago.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Thanks, but I don't need help understanding. Your passage speaks for itself.


Good Gawd this is such a total crock of BS.

Jesus Christ had no children Dan Brown!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Do you think that Jesus (the Son of God Jesus) was the only person named Jesus? What an absurd argument. Did you know that Jesus had TWO disciples named Judas? Here is the Greek word for Jesus, as in Jesus Christ...

Jesus = ιησους

Here is Acts 13:6-10 from the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament (the underlying text of the ESV, along with Nestle, et al)

6 διελθοντες δε ολην την νησον αχρι παφου ευρον ανδρα τινα μαγον ψευδοπροφητην ιουδαιον ω ονομα βαριησους
7 ος ην συν τω ανθυπατω σεργιω παυλω ανδρι συνετω ουτος προσκαλεσαμενος βαρναβαν και σαυλον επεζητησεν ακουσαι τον λογον του θεου
8 ανθιστατο δε αυτοις ελυμας ο μαγος ουτως γαρ μεθερμηνευεται το ονομα αυτου ζητων διαστρεψαι τον ανθυπατον απο της πιστεως
9 σαυλος δε ο και παυλος πλησθεις πνευματος αγιου ατενισας εις αυτον
10 ειπεν ω πληρης παντος δολου και πασης ραδιουργιας υιε διαβολου εχθρε πασης δικαιοσυνης ου παυση διαστρεφων τας οδους του κυριου τας ευθειας


No where in there is the name Jesus, as in Jesus Christ.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

And oh, there are plenty more, the ones I mentioned are the ones referenced by The Analytical Greek Lexicon by Samuel Bagster & Sons.

The version I used in the OP and mostly elsewhere is the ESV or English Standard Version which in my opinion is probably the best translation out there, relying on a critical Greek and Hebrew translation made from over 10 000 separate documents, unlike KJV which is basically an English medieval translation made from Textus Receptus.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: OptimusSubprime

It makes no difference who carried the name. Paul calls Someone whose name if 'Bar-Jesus' which means literally 'Son of Jesus' -- Paul calls the son of Jesus (any Jesus) the son of the Devil. I believe that Saul Paulus is full of it. I believe Saul Paulus is the Devil. And I believe that he pursued the children of God and was seeking to kill them all, like he killed Saint Stephen. Jesus blinded Saul Paulus if we are to believe Acts. And then Saul Paulus later does the exact same thing with someone called Son of Jesus. Don't you think this looks awfully like revenge and an-eye-for-an-eye?

Like I said earlier in another thread, we can only hope Paul is being ironic here, and that his calling Bar-Jesus, "son of the devil", that this is in fact an ironic-but-friendly salute, one friend to the other, and I honestly hope it is, however I still believe Saul Paulus was the devil.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElohimJD
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Yeshua bar Joseph of Nazareth was Jesus' name, Jesus was not the son of Jesus.


Actually, he was born out of wedlock, so his family name would be that of his mother, which was Bar-David in Aramaic or Davidsson in English. How can we know? Look up instances for 'Son of David' or 'David's Son'. Those are names, not some mystical reference to some "spiritual" meaning or some slang or euphemism for Messiah. Also look at King Jame's Lucifer. The Hebrew doesn't say Lucifer or Satan or anything really. Isaiah says «How did you get down to Earth, Hillel ben-Shakar?» it's even rather friendly, perhaps a salute. Like with Paul and his «Son of the Devil», who was a son of Jesus. Choose your Jesus wisely. And choose your Pauluses and Simons even wiser. There are quite a few of them.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Joshua (Yeshua) was a very common Hebrew name. Still is today.

Paul called the false prophet the son of the devil.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

There is a reason why they stole the dead sea scrolls and kept them away from the people of the world. Because they give the truth. The truth is what all these foolish cowards on the earth do not want you, and I, to know. They are so foolish enough, to think that we will continue to believe their lies of a deep sea, and to think that we are that foolish as to not uncover the truth.

Ever since I have opened up the door to light and truth, you may have heard some of my ranting - That I have seen, say after day, the tactics and motivations of the darkness. I have made jealous all those foolish cowards, the Scrolls call them 'Seekers after Smooth Things.' This is one of the secrets within the scrolls - They do not know they are in darkness, which is why they teach lies to lead astray other people when they see a child of the light, a lover of truth - for it is the darkness which deceives them from the ignorance of not knowing, but "for the eye is awake and watches over thy soul" and they will equate lightness as darkness, eagerly trying to escape the grasp, but they do not consider that Knowledge is Secret, and Wisdom is Hidden - kept from the eyes of the prideful and given to the humbled servant. Everybody in the world is made of pride, not one religious person follows the teachings and makes themselves a humble servant.


Teachers of lies have comforted your people
and now they stumble, foolishly.
They abhor themselves
and do not esteem me through whom your wonders
and powers are manifest.
They have banished me from my land like a bird
from its nest, and my friends
and neighbors are driven from me.
They think me a broken pot.
They preach lies. They are dissembling prophets.
They devise baseness against me,
exchanging your teaching, written in my heart,
for smooth words.
They deny knowledge to the thirsty
and force them to drink vinegar to cover up error.
They stumble through mad feasts,
but you, God, spurn the schemes of Belial.
Your wisdom prevails.
Your hearts meditation prevails, established forever.
Thanksgiving Psalm 8 (Dead Sea Scrolls)


Notice the Ebionite origin -


You rescue me from the jealousy of liars,
from the congregation of those who seek the smooth way.
But you save the soul of the poor
whom they planned to destroy
by spilling the blood of your servant.
I walked because of you - but they didn't know this.
They laughed at me. They shamed me
with lies from their mouth.
But you helped the soul of the poor and the weak,
you saved me from their harsh arms,
you redeemed me amid their taunts.
From the wicked I do not fear destruction.
Thanksgiving Psalm 4 (Dead Sea Scrolls)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

It amazes me how wrong people have it.

And it amazes me how it is God's intention for them to have it so wrong.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Joshua (Yeshua) was a very common Hebrew name. Still is today.


Indeed, but only a few made it into the Bible, right?


Paul called the false prophet the son of the devil.


Exactly who is saying Elymas Magus was a false prophet here? Oh, that's right, the author of Acts, a certain Roman physician who also wrote Luke. Paul's manager so to speak.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: greyer

Sorry, but euphemisms and dualistic concepts of light and darkness will not save this world. It might very well end up being the reason why some nut decides to destroy the world by the press of a button though.
edit on 7-2-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

do you have proof Jesus was born out of wedlock, the jewish tradition in the wedding ceremony back then and i think even now, was to go to a private room this symbolizes the consummation of the marriage.it is also my understanding that a year before marriage, a betrothal ceremony called erusin or kiddushin, which means sanctification, is preformed and for all intensiveness purposes they are married, after the betrothal ceremony, if unfaithfulness became a issue, the groom could get a divorce. there is no evidence that Joseph did that, and i would say that according to the gospels they indeed were betrothed, and married before Jesus was born.

in fact the gospel Mathew even says that Joseph was her husband, and thought about getting a divorce, but changed his mind and did marry her. even in the ESV you like to use. but a angel or some versions say Lord came to him and said not to do it.




Matthew:1 18-25 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Conception and Birth of Jesus
18 Now the birth of Jesus [r]Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been [s]betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned [t]to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been [v]conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for [w]He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this [x]took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name [y]Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph [z]awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 [aa]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.


and the version you like.



Matthew1:18-25 English Standard Version (ESV)
The Birth of Jesus Christ
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ[e] took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed[f] to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.





edit on 7-2-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

do you have proof Jesus was born out of wedlock, the jewish tradition in the wedding ceremony back then and i think even now, was to go to a private room this symbolizes the consummation of the marriage.


To turn the problem around, can you prove that Joseph ever acknowledged Jesus as his son?

Naming was, and as far as I know still is based on closest blood relation in Hebrew culture, meaning that the child in the case of Jesus would get his mother's family name. Notice how it's family name, Jesus wouldn't be named by the name of his mother as in cases where the father is unknown, as with Jesus he wouldn't be called Bar-Miriam, that's an oxymoron, he would be named by the nearest patriarch, and since Mother Mary was of Judean royal descent, her name family name would be king David (bar/bat David), Jesus was a Bar-David and his mother's surname, is unknown.
edit on 7-2-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim


but that he has come already in humility-even he who is called Jesus-they do not know. And this is a great confirmation of His coming, that all do not believe on Him.
Clementine Literauture (testimony of Peter) Chapter 50 - His Rejection by the Jews


I am sorry that the truth is so hard for you to access after 2,000 years of lies. Follow me, and I will show you the Truth. I will show you the Way which has been opposed and forgotten. The secrets which really please God, and the opposition of darkness which is utterly fooled by delusion.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

but what you missed in all that is Joseph kept the secret that she was with child, in others words no one knew until later he was not the biological father. knowing that, he would have been born under Joseph's name. and no where does it say that he ever changed his name. even if he did acknowledge he was not the biological father it is plain to see that he adopted him and under jewish law the adopted child take the mans family name, i'll have to find it.

this here might help explain,



The adrogatio of the older Roman law—a legal process by which a man can create betweenhimself and a person not his child relations that properly belong only to father and child—is unknown to both Biblical and Talmudic law. But the feeling that the man and woman who bring up a child, and more especially those who teach the child virtue and the fear of God, should be honored as parents is strongly expressed in the Talmud (Sanh. 19b), which, in the usual way, strengthens the views of the sages with quotations from Scripture. Concerning the sons of Michal, daughter of King Saul, mentioned in II Sam. xxi. 8, Rabbi Joshua b. Ḳorḥa,

one of the sages of Mishnaic times, asks:

"Did Michal bear them? Did not rather Merab bear them? Merab bore them, and Michal reared them; to teach us that whoever rears an orphan in his own house is, in the words of Scripture, deemed its parent. R. Ḥanina drew the same doctrine from Ruth, iv. 17. 'And the women her neighbors gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi.' Now, did Naomi bear him? Did not Ruth bear him? Ruth bore him and Naomi reared him; therefore he is called Naomi's child.

"R. Eleazar, quoting Ps. lxxvii. 15, finds the doctrine in these words: 'Thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah!' And was not Jacob their father? Yes; Jacob begat them, but Joseph nourished them; therefore they take his name. R. Samuel b. Naḥmani says, on the authority of R. Jonathan: Whoever teaches the son of his companion the Law, has the right, in the sense of Scripture, to be deemed that person's father: for it is said (Num. iii. 1, 2): 'These are the generations of Aaron and Moses,' and farther on: 'And these are the names of the sons of Aaron'; this is totell thee that Aaron begat them, and Moses taught them: hence they are set down under Moses' name."
ADOPTION:



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: greyer

I guess they were much more clever 2000 years ago than we are today, huh? I am lucky enough not having to believe in Jesus. We are related. --Or to abide by doctrine, but thanks for offering me the ride. Does this Truth of your's have a name? Is there a guru?

PS: It's just I don't usually jump on band buses. I'd might be trying to get some rest in one on occasion though.
edit on 7-2-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join