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.

 

Was the apostle Paul a wolf in sheep's clothing?

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
It would be interesting to get the gangs take on Pauls comparison of Baptism and Circumcision in " ESV Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
Col 2:15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Paul started out as a hater of Christ and his followers. He participated in the stoning of Stephen; he was essentially FBI for the Jews (the Herodians). He himself was actually an Israelite (Benjaminite) and not a converted Idumaen like the ones who had taken over under the Romans from a 100 years earlier. He was rich and powerful.

Then he "saw the light" during the event on the road to Damascus---he was given a revelation of truth regarding Christ.

From that point on, he was hated, imprisoned, stoned, and eventually killed for his teaching the Good News. Doesn't sound like a wolf in sheep's clothing to me.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Tusks

God could save Paul from prison, but not John the Baptist OR the apostle John. Why? Because his imprisonment was fabricated to create sympathy for him.

God could save Paul from stoning, but not the one he helped to stone. Paul held the coats of those who stoned Stephen and Stephen died, yet when Paul was stoned he was unharmed.

Why did God save Paul but not Stephen? Probably because Paul's "persecution" was fabricated.

Also, which version of Paul's conversion do you believe? Luke gives three contradictory accounts of his supposed conversion.
edit on 2/20/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I have followed some of your postings for sometime friend, I have enjoyed your input on this community the past couple years


Mind checking out my intro thread?

Wholeness brother



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You seem to be on a mission lately eh... S&F

a reply to: Tusks

Actually we don't know if Paul was killed or not... The earliest account of what happened to him was by Ignatius which was a long time after he disappeared... He says he was martyred... Christian tradition says he was beheaded yet theres no evidence of it...

Personally I think he was part of what could be considered a "witness protection program"... he changed his name and disappeared




posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Tusks



God could save Paul from prison, but not John the Baptist OR the apostle John. Why? Because his imprisonment was fabricated to create sympathy for him.



God could save Paul from stoning, but not the one he helped to stone. Paul held the coats of those who stoned Stephen and Stephen died, yet when Paul was stoned he was unharmed.



Why did God save Paul but not Stephen? Probably because Paul's "persecution" was fabricated.



Also, which version of Paul's conversion do you believe? Luke gives three contradictory accounts of his supposed conversion.



Good thoughts here... never accured to me.... Kudos!
Yes, Paul took X-tianity in a new direction. I also wonder
who wrote Hebrews. Was is it a group of people who agreed
to place Paul's name on it? Was this done for the same reason?
Namely, to give Paul crediblity and authority?

Consider how the debate over keeping the Law (10 Commandments)
would have changed X-tainity were it not for Paul's New Covenant.
In my view, he got it right and those who walked with Jesus were
the one who got it wrong. Still, Paul was oftn wrong on other
subjects.... but then we are wrong to esteem Paul too highly.

It is all about rejecting False Authority, Paul was right to
reject the Old Covenant. But I doubt he knew is letters
would someday be viewed "Scripture" (as they have).



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Ive read a few scholars believe Paul was Josephus, and instead of being beheaded he just assumed his other identity and became a historian for Rome. Professor Eisenman has a few lectures on this. Fascinating material. He also has uncovered a huge amount of historic information about John the brother of Jesus. And they reveal a different Jesus than we are taught.

There are a lot of questions surrounding the life of Jesus too. www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
2 Peter 3:14-16

14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 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.

I guess Peter was a fraud too? And if this verse isn't trustworthy, what makes any other part of what we call scripture trustworthy?



edit on 2/20/2015 by Klassified because: add bolding



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

I guess you could say that.


I like to think I've been inspired, but maybe I'm just being a blabber mouth. I'm sure some here would think so.


Thanks brother.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

2 Peter is widely held to be pseudographical, not actually Peter writing/speaking but someone who claimed to be him. The verse in question implies that Paul was well-known at the time when he probably wasn't.

But yes, Peter was a fraud as well, he supposedly denied Jesus and sat with Roman soldiers at Jesus' trial.

How can we know if anything else in the bible can be trusted? Through discernment. There is truth in the bible, it's only a case of separating weeds from the wheat.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I really appreciate you as a member here, but I see a lack of discernment, as well as a lot of misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and fallacy being played off as fact when it comes to this topic. Biblically speaking. I believe Paul was one of the teachers Jesus was referring to when he said...
Matthew 23:34

Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.

Paul's only problem is that people of his own time, as well as today aren't interested in learning the deeper meanings, and studying their bible to understand his teachings. Biblically speaking, he was the most accurate, and best teacher Christianity has ever known. Was he perfect? No. Neither were any of the others. Not that I have a dog in this race, but when I was a Christian, I spent years studying and determining whether Paul was the real thing. In my opinion, his teachings not only support Christ's teachings, but expound greatly on them.

Nevertheless, this is why there are so many sects of Christianity. Everyone is eclectic, and takes from the bible what suits them. I tend to agree with faux Peter.

16 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.


Nothing personal aimed at you. Just my two cents on the topic.
edit on 2/20/2015 by Klassified because: eta



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't believe Paul was unharmed from the stoning. He was left for dead, but recovered. He was left with some residual injury that made his writing effected.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I have always viewed the new testament as a hockey night show on television.

First, you have the match.
Then you have the after-match program where you have a bunch of uneducated rabid morons over-analyzing the action and making cretinous speculations.

Guess where Paul fits in this ?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I think so. I've never had any faith in Saul of Tarsus being a true apostle, much less disciple. (I refuse to give him the respect that the title of "Saint Paul" confers, so I do call him Saul of Tarsus).

Many believe that "The Man of Lies" referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls refers to Saul, and that the "Teacher of Righteousness" refers to James, the older brother of Jesus. The BBC did a documentary on this a couple years ago. There are links to the documentary (in four videos) here.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

So Paul saying he does evil fits into what Jesus said how? If someone not doing what Jesus said to do means their house has no foundation, then why does Paul admit he does not do what Jesus said to do? Wouldn't that mean his house has no foundation?

Also, if not accepting everything in the bible means I lack discernment then I guess I'm guilty. Though I'd say someone accepting everything without question is lacking discernment.

By Jesus' own words Paul's house has no foundation. I'd say Paul is one of the false prophets and teachers that Jesus warned us about. Paul was not righteous according to himself, why would Jesus choose an unrighteous person to carry his message? It doesn't make any sense.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Nice thread! F/S

Mohamed was ALSO a wolf - for what it's worth.
And see what we have today? With people following them both?

A load of crap - that's what.

If there was a 'real prophet' spawned by Christianity, it was the founder of the Baha'i faith - which followers Muslims have been killing ever since they (the Baha'i) 'arrived on the scene.'





edit on 2/20/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Tusks

So God saved Paul but not Stephen still. Why couldn't he have saved Stephen like he did Paul? Was Stephen not important enough?



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Tusks

So God saved Paul but not Stephen still. Why couldn't he have saved Stephen like he did Paul? Was Stephen not important enough?

Our job is not to question God or his ways, but to be the best people that we can be. I think Stephen accomplished that, and Paul was also giving it his best effort--and it has been an effort that affected the whole world in a positive manner.
edit on 10/06/2013 by Tusks because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Romans 7 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

It is painfully obvious here, and in the rest of chapter 7 that Paul is using himself to represent the average person who lives under the power of sin, and cannot achieve the freedom and righteousness that only Christ can give. Because they will give into their "sinful nature", proving by their own life and actions that the law was given to point out this very fact. Also note that John says in his epistle that "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us".
Paul's discourse in these verses is simply instruction using himself as the example instead of Frank or Bart. We must read what is written in context. We must read what is being said, not what we want it to say to confirm our bias. Paul's teaching in these verses is to demonstrate law and grace, old and new, our failures and Jesus' accomplishments on our behalf. Biblically, this chapter is profound teaching that takes a lot of study to grasp. Metaphysically, it is even more profound.

But please, carry on. As I said, I have no dog in this race. I was just trying to inject a perspective that the mob mentality may not be considering in their zeal to crucify Paul without even understanding what it is they're reading.



posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

********(I would like to first note that the (AV 1611 KJV bible) is the most accurate translation from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The old testament is written in Hebrew the new testament is written in greek.
The original Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts are the infallible word of God and are WITHOUT ERROR! The 1611 KJV is thee most accurate translation of all bibles next to JP green literal translation.)********

If you do not believe the word of God is 100% truth, then you may as well throw the whole bible out. How could you trust it? If there is a single error in the bible then it's not the word of God. God does not make errors. God has preserved his word as it says in the psalms.

Psa 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Further more the whole bible is God's word. Yes God used men to physically write the books of the Bible. But the words come from the mouth of God. They are all God's words!

2Pe 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So the words The apostle Paul wrote are really from the mouth of God. So if you don't trust the words Paul wrote then you don't trust God's word. Bottom Line.

Paul is considered the 13th apostle because God came to Paul on his way to Damascus. (Acts 9). Your reasoning for Paul being a hypocrite and prideful is very poor and against God's word. Paul did not consider himself worthy to be called an apostle or Christian because he persecuted and killed Christians. He strongly believed that Christians were against God. But God humbled him and saved him.

Act 9:15
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:
Act 9:16
For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Paul is writing in Rom 7:14 that the law is Spiritual it's of God, but he is carnal because that everyman's nature. We are all carnal we are all sinners by nature. But if we have been saved we are perfect in God's eyes. Are sins have all been paid for.

Rom 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

What these verses mean in Romans is that Paul is saying that by nature( sinful condition) I do things I want to do, and that is to sin. LIKE ALL MEN DO. But the thing Paul would NOT do by nature, is to do Good. So the Good that he would not do by nature, HE does by God's spirit dwelling in him.

Also About the strong foundation. Read Like 6:48-49 This is HOW TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE VERSE IS SAYING.

Luk 6:48
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

Luk 6:49
But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

This is Spiritually talking about Satan and God. God is the rock.Like it says in Psa 78:35
And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

The house that is built upon the rock(God) is all of the true believers. They are built as lively stones as it says in 1Peter 2:5. Then when the winds came(Judgment day) the house stood strong, because it was built upon a rock(GOD).

Spiritually then Man who built his house upon the earth is Satan. The unsaved are built upon the earth. Satan rules over them. The winds came(JUDGMENT DAY) and beat upon the house and it fell, great was the fall. This is spiritually representing Satan's kingdom. On May 21, 2011 A Spiritual Judgment day began and unsaved fell because they were built upon Satan Kingdom. Where's the saved were built upon a rock. They were built upon God.

In Conclusion.

God's Elect: Built Upon Rock(God). Withstood the winds(Judgment day)
The Unsaved: Built Upon Earth(Satan) could not withstand the winds(Judgment day)

If you believe Paul was an Imposter then you do not believe God's word is God's Word and WITHOUT ERROR.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join