It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I know you will say that I have taken these things out of context, but that is a cop out to ignore the real issue. All of the verses I cited stand on their own and are their own context, they mean exactly what they say and no amount of verses surrounding them will change what they mean.
'PAUL' CURSED JESUS CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES
" If we or an angel from heaven preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL to you than what we (Paul and his followers) have preached to you LET HIM BE A CURSE"
There was a distinction even back then with the disciples of Jesus and Paul and "his" followers. Barnabbas and Mark both followed Paul at one time and then left him and went back to the disciples. Barnabbas was sent by the Apostle Peter to travel with Paul and teach Paul the ways and teachings of Jesus, but Paul wasn't going to play second fiddle to anyone and usurped the authority of Barnabbas and taught what he wanted to teach. How many ever knew that Paul was suppose to be subservient to Barnabbas
Indeed I PAUL say to you that IF ANYONE BECOME CIRCUMCISED Christ will profit you nothing " (Gal. 5:2).
too bad Paul! The circumcision was a sign of the covenant between Israel and Yahovah and you're lie was exposed for what it was! Another false "divine revelation!"
YET, despite his assertion that 'Christ will profit you nothing', 'Paul' himself, HYPOCRITICALLY " took TIMOTHY and CIRCUMCISED HIM "
20: Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named,
lest I should build upon another man's foundation
So according to Paul's own words, he is the FIRST man to preach
(the previously "unnamed" Christ) to the Ephesians.
And of course, who wrote "Ephesians"?
Paul did. But can Paul be proven a liar?
Was Paul teaching the doctrine of Balaam?
The following doctrine comes from Pauline Christianity....
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself:
but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Now in attempting to protect a false apostle, one might claim that Paul did not write the book of Romans. The problem with this false claim, is that every doctrine espoused by Paul is consistently taught through every book that he wrote. Consistent through Paul's writings, for one instance, is the eating of unclean meats.
1 TIMOTHY 4
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Paul is clearly lying here, as proven by Ezekiel who states that you cannot make the unclean thing to be a clean thing....but more of that in a moment. Are there other passages that point to Paul stating that you can eat not only UNCLEAN MEATS, but MEATS sacrificed unto IDOLS?
I said "the early church". The church of 200 A.D. was still the early church.
As I said, they brought together the New Testament
For the Orthodox, the recognition of these writings as authoritative was formalized in the Second Council of Trullan of 692, although it was nearly universally accepted in the mid 300s. The Catholic Church made dogmatic definition upon its Biblical canon at the Council of Trent of 1546, reaffirmed the Canons of Florence of 1442 and North African Councils (Hippo and Carthage) of 393-419. For the Church of England, it was made dogmatic on the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563; for Calvinism, on the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647.
Revelation even compares him to balaam
Revelation comes through seeing the world not straight on
To the chagrin of the biblical Jesus, I would think.
originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Well the New Testament wasn't canonized as the New Testament until much later..
but lets be liberal with the "truth" .