Gospel of the Holy Twelve

a reply to: Mazzini

You did say "Jesus was not his real name but Yeshua was" So why correct us all with your Opinion and then not use it. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

a reply to: Mazzini

This is from Thomas .

Gospel of Thomas 12 (12) - The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"

One quote from a gospel many years removed but is not harmonized with any of the others that are earlier documents .

originally posted by: Mazzini
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I really couldn't care less what you think. You are only providing what you think.

But the church doesn't/didn't agree and I don't care if it was official or not in the New Testament.

This is not a New Testament only proposition and you are scared of anything extra biblical even if it's evident but not stated.

James was Bishop of Jerusalem. The Jerusalem church was the Apostolic church until Rome expelled the Jews.

You are wrong a LOT.

I provided actual Biblical facts in order of how they proceeded. No one calls him the successor of Jesus. He is referred to along with Peter and John as a pillar of the church but never is he said to be a successor.

This is not my words or opinion these are Biblical fact found in Acts 15. So much for you having the holy Ghost, I can tell it is not in you because I compared spiritual to spiritual just as the Holy Ghost teaches (1 Cor 2:13) and you failed.

I am not afraid of extra Biblical as long as it agrees with the Bible if it does not then it is a lie and only will cause confusion, and confusion is not of God.

a reply to: Mazzini

But if you need biblical evidence that James was the leader of the Apostles I refer you to when Paul and Barnabas are seeking wisdom, specifically regarding circumcision, it is James that they seek answers from and who, along with other Apostles, consults the Holy Spirit.

So James is one of the others that were discussing the aspect of circumcision . James is quoted but had it been one of the others ,they would fall into the one that could be considered Bishop .....James the elder , but Peter and John would also be of the elder status so ....And Paul was correct in his understanding as the others confirmed and sent others back to Antioch to give the judgement of the matter .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

You want me to force you to believe it or something?

I have said all I have to say about it. We have different opinions on the validity of certain Gospels but I told you that it is Catholic doctrine that James was Bishop of Jerusalem.

And the one whom Paul seeks for guidance.

You can take it or leave it, it makes no real difference to me and is moot because you are clearly looking for more evidence than that which exists. I am not the type of person to say take it on faith so you can make up your mind based on the info provided.

I do enjoy your comments though, at least you are pleasant.

a reply to: Mazzini

I just find it a bit strange that you would take later statements in Christianity and force them back to a earlier date . Remember that the truth comes out and is reported on and then it usually ends up getting distorted .That is why the earlier text is so important to separate or weed out the distortions . I only have a opinion but try to look to the best sources to understand what happened . A 18 century document is far removed from the original sources even though it contains some of the original data .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

You find it odd that I don't live and die off the Bible alone for historical information?

I find it odd if you do. I never would follow the official story about anything because human nature is corrupt.

I just do the best I can with the info available to everyone.

I can only tell you that I believe that more information on Jesus/Yeshua exists other than the bible.

Call me a Gnostic, I guess, because I don't believe that any one religion is 100% true I believe that they all have a part of the truth and it is our responsibility to figure out the truth with the Spirit as our guide

I might be a nut for saying this (to some) but I believe once you have the Holy Spirit your wisdom increases in unexplainable ways.

Good luck on your search for the truth. I hope we all find it.

a reply to: Mazzini

I believe once you have the Holy Spirit your wisdom increases in unexplainable ways.

answer me this ....how did you come to have the Holy Spirit ? Who ,what ,when ,where ,and why the Holy Spirit ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Ihave to disagree with you about the correctness of Paul.

Paul went to the Apostles for guidance on circumcision. James made it a non-issue and gave Paul 4 suggestions for the gentiles to live a Holy life without burdening them.

Now go to the part where Paul returns to the Gentiles and read what he tells them.

"They only said to remember the poor." A blatant lie.

"They added nothing to me."

Is another statement he makes and is a braggadocius statement as if he is superior to what he calls

" Apostles of men."

Is that not an obvious dis? The Apostles consult the Spirit and not only does Paul disregard the Spirit and the Apostles easy suggestions on living holy, he actually teaches that one of them "don't eat meat sacrificed to Idols." Is the teaching of the spiritually weak. He says as long as you are not around your spiritually weak brother it is nothing to eat meat sacrificed to Idols because they don't exist.

But in Revelation 2:2, I believe, Jesus condemns those teaching " the doctrine of Balaam" which he specifically says is teaching that it is Ok to eat meat sacrificed to Idols.

Paul teaches this doctrine of Balaam. Jesus condemns it.

Proof that Paul was not in communication at any point with Jesus.

Do you honestly think that Jesus would allow someone who he talked to and made "apostle" to teach condemned teachings IN HIS NAME?

I do not, I am certain Paul was a false prophet.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Mazzini

I believe once you have the Holy Spirit your wisdom increases in unexplainable ways.

answer me this ....how did you come to have the Holy Spirit ? Who ,what ,when ,where ,and why the Holy Spirit ?

I asked.

a reply to: Mazzini

Do you honestly think that Jesus would allow someone who he talked to and made "apostle" to teach condemned teachings IN HIS NAME?

You may have the wrong context to this . A Idol is nothing ..meat offered to a idol is nothing in that it can not add to anything spiritual . So like Peter was shown with the blanket let down and told to eat ,kosher means nothing .Because what goes in the stomach does not defile a man but what comes out of his mouth can defile him .Paul is ok on this when you look at it ,and compare it to other scriptures . Peter had issues with even hanging with gentiles .Paul called him a hypocrite because God had broken the wall of partition between the Jew and the Gentile .

a reply to: Mazzini

I asked.

in the book of acts there was someone who not only asked but was willing to pay money .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I am not Simon Magus, I didn't even ask a human being, that would be a lack of faith on my part. I went to the source. Ask and you shall receive.

Why would you think I purchased it?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I think you miss the whole doctrine of Balaam point or are ignoring the obvious.

Paul taught a teaching word for word which Jesus word for word condemned.

You aren't going to tell me I have it out of context when contextually I could not be more accurate.

You tried to explain how Paul wasn't teaching something that he clearly was.

There is no rationalizing away Jesus words. Don't be foolish by saying Paul wasn't teaching exactly what Jesus called " the doctrine of Balaam."

He absolutely was and no assembly of words will erase it.

a reply to: Mazzini

the more you post the more you prove who your are and the sooner you will be banned.

Having an IP mask is not protection by the holy spirit it is deception god is not a deceiver but you are.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Revelation 13:14

But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to Idols..."

I don't care what kind of twisted logic you use, but clearly Jesus is condemning exactly what Paul is teaching. If an Idol is nothing, as you and Paul say, then why is Jesus so concerned that he contacted John from heaven to stop it? It is not the point of the whole book but nevertheless, Paul is guilty of this teaching, you even said so yourself that an Idol is nothing.

Well Jesus disagrees.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Whoever you are obsessed with is somebody else dude, and you are just being a troll.

It would be awesome if there was a REAL Gospel of the 12 Apostles.

a reply to: Mazzini

Revelation 13:14 But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teachings of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to Idols..."

Rev.13:13,14,15

…13He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men. 14And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. 15And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed.

I am sure you were talking about Rev 2:14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality. Just a guess on my part but what Paul was saying can be understood in Revelation in the same way . The stumbling aspect of these meats offered to Idols had a spiritual element or that ,that was the thought . Its much like the Kosher food laws . Peter ,when told to eat said no ,because he was a good Jew .But God rebuked him . Now a Idol is just a piece of wood carved to represent some entity .It was the though of this entity behind the Idol that was the issue . Not the wood or not what you would get from eating meat offered to it .

We almost get a complete 180 degree with the RCC teaching of Transubstantiation . Paul did make the distinction between believing the meat had some value to it and realizing that it did not ,but because of a weaker brother in the faith that might stumble seeing him eat meat offered to idols . Paul was working with the Pagan world and they had got their spiritual food from meats and rituals . That is why the note from Jerusalem in Acts 15

The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

The issue was actually some Jews thought that they had to add circumcision to the equation for salvation .Paul said no and the rest agreed .The meat issue was also a issue .Well at least the though about meat offered to idols was . It would be like thinking that there is some spiritual thing to gain from circumcision .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I don't propose to know the op's thoughts, but I can see how Paul was teaching exactly what Jesus was condemning as the doctrine of Balaam.

That is not something someone who was a conduit for Jesus would be teaching.

But God's plan is mysterious. I confess to a little bit of a hatred for the RCC due to its oppression and war mongering past. Things like the crusades and the Inquisition are hard to swallow.

I just feel safer not taking Paul for anything other than a tool for some mystery of God, one that I want no part of. He could be interpreted legitimately as either a false prophet or the Apostle to the Gentiles, depending on your interpretation of scripture.

I think that teaching that doctrine of Balaam mentioned by Jesus is perfectly legitimate a reason to reject Paul.

But if you don't I don't blame you or think you're wrong , possibly just the recipient of a different lesson.

Either way, interesting feedback.