It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 03:42 PM
a reply to: Klassified

But you're giving the Christian perspective, so how have I not considered it? I used to be Christian.

I find the perspective you're giving lacking in cohesiveness to what Jesus taught, which is why I reject Paul's teachings. He claims to speak for Jesus, if his teachings contradict Jesus then how can he claim to speak for him? If his teachings do not align with those of Jesus then he only speaks for himself and was a liar.

Are you implying that Paul was not an average person who lives under the power of sin and that he was free from sin? If not, then he was still speaking of himself as well. If he was speaking of himself then his teachings have no foundation according to Jesus, who he claims to speak for.

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 03:50 PM

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.

Yes, but consider who different X-tianity would be if those who
follow THE LAW... and IF James (the borther of Jesus) had become
the High Priest of Israel (as the Dead Sea Scroll report).

Robert Eisenman has proposed James, brother of Jesus as the Teacher against a "Wicked Priest" (Ananus ben Ananus), and a "Spouter of Lies" which Eisenman identifies as Paul of Tarsus.[11][12] However, the introduction of the Teacher of Righteousness in the Damascus Document (CD 1:5-11) places the ascendance of this figure just prior to the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt sometime in the first half of the second century BCE.[13] One theory initially advocated by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor[6] and subsequently by Stegemann is that the Teacher of Righteousness served as High Priest but was subsequently ousted by Jonathan Maccabeus. That date is roughly two hundred years too early to be James, the brother of Jesus.

Was James made High Priest of Israel or not?
Is so, how does that fit with Jesus teachings?

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 03:52 PM
a reply to: Tusks

Paul and Stephen were both saved men. Stephen and Paul know like all of God's elect that death for the elect is a time of great joy for the saved, because their soul never dies, and immediately their soul goes to be God in heaven.

2Co 5:8
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Stephen Died when he did because it was God's timing. Stephen would rather be heaven then on this sin cursed earth. Paul understood this same mutual feeling.

Phl 1:23
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
Phl 1:24
Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

Where is your heart at Is it on this earth? Or in Heaven?

Mat 6:20
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Luk 17:32
Remember Lot's wife. (Ask yourself, are you looking back at the things of this world like Lot's wife?) Her body was leaving the city but her heart never left. So she was turned into a pillar of salt.

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 04:56 PM

originally posted by: wasaka

Was James made High Priest of Israel or not?
Is so, how does that fit with Jesus teachings?

Very good questions... and ones I don't have the answers for. I've read so many theories from so many perspectives, and the only conclusions I've come to is that not all can be correct, and since I have no personal knowledge or inside info, I just don't know. I do find it all very intriguing though.
edit on 20-2-2015 by Boadicea because: formatting

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 06:33 PM
From my point of view:

I was raised in Christian protestant church but have always had a hard time with the faith in Jesus automatic sins wiped belief. I also noticed that the whole Christian faith in my country Sweden is more cultural for most than faith driven. For some reason Buddhism and karma felt very right to me. I always felt something was wrong with Christian teachings and thought religions was the worst thing humans have created since people only fight over it.

Then I had my own spiritual experiences and I can say there is something more existing that is not part of the atheism world view. I read Jesus teachings again and notice that logically he was spot on from my point of view with my experiences. I also noticed it was Paul that caused all the illogical wrongness with his additions to Jesus teachings.

Then I read Buddha and noticed that Jesus and Buddha might use different words but are to me the same message on meta level. Then I realized that Nanak and Rumi also said the same things with different words. The spirit was working in many religions and many people at the same time. En-light-ened soul who know the source personally and can feel the light within.

But if you listen to Paul only the Christian faith in Jesus as an idol can be way. I instead believe that thru following Jesus example we become like Jesus and pass thru Jesus. The other idea for me just brings duality. The source of all wars and disconnection in the world. Making grouping of me/us vs them.

Namaste (I am not Hindu but I love this phrase. I bow to the divine in you)
edit on 20-2-2015 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 06:58 PM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I do only know about Baha'i from their Wikipedia page. They seem to be closer to non duality than the usual Christian and usual Islam faith. But it seems they have not yet understood why god makes people homosexual even if they are not that hard with dealing with homosexuals.
edit on 20-2-2015 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:03 PM

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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.'

I am a former member of Baha'i faith. In hindsight it seems like the perfect NWO religion. They push for world govt, completely syncretic, awaiting another manifestation (prophet/anti-christ), have institutions already planned for global governance in Haifa, Israel. They helped push for the U.N. and are wholly supported by the U.N. . I have always been curious as to why more threads are not created about the subject. Unlike anti-pauline threads which pop up once a month....
edit on 20-2-2015 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:32 PM

Matthew 7
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

False prophets produce bad fruit, meaning their works are evil. You will recognize them by their fruit, Paul admits that his fruit is evil, which is why he says he continues to do what is evil. because he is a bad tree, which is why he cannot bear good fruit. He admits that he "cannot do what is good, only what is evil".

1 Samuel 24
13 As the old saying goes, 'From evildoers come evil deeds,' so my hand will not touch you.

Coincidentally, this verse is David talking to Saul. Paul was known as Saul before his "conversion".

From evildoers come evil deeds...

Romans 7
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.

Evil deeds coming from a good tree? I don't think so. Evil deeds come from evildoers, not good trees.

And Paul is addressing "brothers and sisters" in Romans 7, those who share the same faith that he supposedly did, that of Jesus' sacrifice. He was not talking about anyone but he and his "brothers and sisters".
edit on 2/20/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:47 PM
a reply to: Tusks

Affected the world in a positive manner? What world are you living in? The world has hardly turned for the better, if anything it has dropped off a cliff.
edit on 2/20/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:51 PM
a reply to: NihilistSanta

United Nations too Christian, claims report

Research undertaken by Prof Jeremy Carrette, with colleagues from the University of Kent's department of religious studies, has revealed that more than 70% of religious non-government organisations (NGOs) at the UN are Christian, and that there is historical privilege in allowing the Vatican a special observer status, as both a state and a religion.

Christianity is supported by the U.N. as well, if not more so than any other religion.

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 09:57 PM

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The entire passage is about Paul himself, I don't see why he would be talking about someone else when the context never changed throughout the passage. Paul was calling himself unspiritual, which begs the question: why do Christians believe an unspiritual man could teach spiritual lessons?

It doesn't seem to me Paul was actually calling himself unspiritual. He seems to be saying that spirit is different from the body/physicality. Spirit is something beyond the form of the person.

posted on Feb, 20 2015 @ 10:01 PM
a reply to: TheJourney

But he claims to "walk in the Spirit and not the flesh". If he walks in the Spirit, it goes to reason that he is spiritual, no? Yet he clearly says "I am unspiritual", I don't see how you came to that conclusion personally.

"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin". He doesn't imply what you have said in any way.
edit on 2/20/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:10 AM
a reply to: SpiritualJudgmentM21

Im sorry but if you believe "Gods word" to be without error...

you need to keep looking...

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 12:28 AM
Paul said you need to sin against God. If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. Did God inspire him to say this? Is this really The Word of God?

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:18 AM
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Interesting! I've tried, actually, a couple of times, to bring it up. I guess because it's a "fringe group" according to people who think JESUS or MOHAMED were the "last" messengers and won't hear of anything other than that.

What about the Unitarian Universalists? Are you familiar with them?
I like them, too.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:24 AM
a reply to: LittleByLittle

But it seems they have not yet understood why god makes people homosexual even if they are not that hard with dealing with homosexuals.

You know, Little, I just don't see why someone's sexuality has to be 'vetted' for them to be good people.
What do you mean "they have not yet understood why"? What's to understand?

Homosexuality just "is." I don't understand it myself, frankly, but it doesn't affect me because I'm not a lesbian (or bisexual) and I don't really care who other people 'sleep with', I just don't want to participate, watch, or dwell on it. If it's consensual, then - whatever floats their boat.

Why do they have to be "dealt with"? And who are humans to decide how to "deal" with them? Unless they are murdering someone, or raping someone of any age, or committing other CIVIL CRIMES, they ought to be left alone.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:29 AM
a reply to: NihilistSanta

Why did you leave the faith?

I considered joining it, even toured their 'visitors center' and spent some time in the Evanston temple - just looking at the architecture, a product of man, made my soul soar - how beautiful!! And what a noble premise!

It had too many 'rules' for me. I would have given a donation, but they only accept them from members. Still, I left a piece of my heart there with them and the memories of those slain for their faith. Have you visited that temple?

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:54 AM
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Seems as though it had something to do with them being supported by the U.N., so he joined a group that's got even more support from the U.N..

Makes sense.

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:54 AM
a reply to: arpgme

Paul said you need to sin against God. If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. Did God inspire him to say this? Is this really The Word of God?

This sounds like Paul (if he said that) is trying to justify his own shortcomings, AND provide a reason for Jesus' death. I don't know where he said that, but it reminds me of working in the corporate world.

For example if an Employee's Handbook says:

"Because we have invested in an HR department, paying one or more people to staff it, and have purchased filing cabinets, file folders, and forms, we expect you to break AT LEAST one of these rules as set forth herein, at your discretion and convenience, to provide us an opportunity to use those already purchased resources. If you have not broken at least ONE of these rules during each random interval as designated by that HR department (randomly), thereby contributing to the work load of the HR department, you will be dismissed.***

These rules can and will be changed at any time** that HR wishes to do so, and no memos will be issued regarding those changes. Further, all rules are not contained in this handbook. It is the responsibility of the employee to know what rules are not included.

Please sign below to indicate you understand this as part of your 'right to work' here.

Employee signature

[littly bitty print in a different language]No advance warning will be given. Some infractions might be overlooked one day and result in being written up the next. This is to give everyone an equal opportunity to screw up and therefore justify the expenses of the HR department for management. Saying "I was unaware" is no excuse. If you are unable to read this little bitty print in another language, please consult with your supervisor.[/little bitty print in a different language]

posted on Feb, 21 2015 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: Akragon

That's the thing though, they don't need to look, they were given the answers on a silver platter.

Seek and you will find, right? What better way to seek than to dig in and not move at all?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in