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.

 

The Genesis Paradox

page: 15
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The guy was a false prophet and sorcerer Acts 13 says, and Paul cursed his vision by the power of the Holy Ghost it says. But I notice in the KJV it says the blindness was "for a season", that implies to me it wasn't a permanent punishment.




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You're didn't even address my questions. Specifically, why do you think Peter affirms Paul as a beloved brother, and why didn't John write about his as a false apostle and a deceiver by name when he names others, and why does Peter and John's direct disciples Polycarp and Clement quote from and speak highly of Paul? Wouldn't Peter or John teach their respective understudies that Paul was a false teacher?


I didn't go indepth, because I need to leave soon. That's why I gave you the link to peruse on your own time. Here's the thing though, you are using scripture to defend scripture. It's a cyclical argument. I don't believe the bible to be inerrant. BUT....I found the contradictions BY just reading scripture. Just as you want to use 2nd Peter to justify Paul being legit, I found many instances in scripture that shows inconsistency or contradiction between Jesus and Paul, and Paul and Paul. I also believe that there were things added onto the bible, perhaps written by Paul or one of his disciples (like onto the letters supposedly penned by Peter). Or maybe, they weren't written by Peter at all. 2nd Peter reads much like Jude, until you get to a certain point in it. Then, it reads like something Paul would write.

Even 1st Peter, closes with mention of Sylvanus and Mark....both devotees to Paul. I also don't recall Peter being in Babylon (which was a euphemism for Rome at the time). Paul was, though. So, did Peter even write it?

There's tons more, but you have to want to dig for it. It was all I thought about for several years. I haven't really paid much attention to it lately. I don't consider myself a Christian...haven't for awhile. Still, if you are open to researching it, go for it. If not, that's ok. Everyone is where they are at in this weird journey of life.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The guy was a false prophet and sorcerer Acts 13 says, and Paul cursed his vision by the power of the Holy Ghost it says. But I notice in the KJV it says the blindness was "for a season", that implies to me it wasn't a permanent punishment.


Ok, WHAT you just pointed out is another good example I can use....can you actually see Jesus EVER doing that to ANYONE? Seriously??
Do you not understand that THAT is why Christians are so obnoxious at times? It's because their Messiah is actually PAUL...not Jesus. Most Christians act just like Paul.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Acts say he was a magus. Plural magoi, which a few pages earlier are called kings and wise men from the East, who came to worship baby Jesus. Besides, go back one page here, you jumped to hastily, I added a postscript to my former post. Why is it that in plural Magoi is to be understood as wise men or even kings and then in in Acts all of a sudden we have a marginalium telling us Magus means sorcerer? Elimas «Magus» Bar-Jesus is the Son of the Devil? Jesus is to be translated into Devil? Your «st. Paul» seems to claim so-- how do you respond?

What happens in Acts 13 is that it is littered with unnecessary marginalia for one, and here «st. Paul» shows us his true face. Jesus blinds Paul. Paul blinds the son of Jesus, while calling him the Son of Satan. How obvious can it get? St. Paul was hunting down Christians for a living for Frigg's sake!
edit on 28-6-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Check out the postscript I added to my earlier post ==> www.abovetopsecret.com...

Keep up the good work, dude
edit on 28-6-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Check out the postscript I added to my earlier post ==> www.abovetopsecret.com...

Keep up the good work, dude


I will, and thanks. Need to run some errands. Carry on everyone.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Maybe in Greek society they were called "wise men", but it says they were Oriental astrologers/sorcerers. That's not me, that's what the text says. This guy was going by the name Bar Jesus, or probably BarYeshua. It doesn't mean anything, othere than that's what the guy was called, or called himself.

The text says he was a false prophet and a sorcerer, and the the Holy Spirit blinded the man "for a season".



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The guy was a false prophet and sorcerer Acts 13 says, and Paul cursed his vision by the power of the Holy Ghost it says. But I notice in the KJV it says the blindness was "for a season", that implies to me it wasn't a permanent punishment.


Ok, WHAT you just pointed out is another good example I can use....can you actually see Jesus EVER doing that to ANYONE? Seriously??
Do you not understand that THAT is why Christians are so obnoxious at times? It's because their Messiah is actually PAUL...not Jesus. Most Christians act just like Paul.


So what do you do with the Holy Spirit striking dead Anninias and Sophira for holding back some of the money they said they sold their property for? There is historical precedent for this earlier in the book of Acts when Jesus blinded Paul on the Damascus road. It seems blasphemous words toward the Holy Spirit is a very serious offense, Jesus said it was an unforgivable sin.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Not true. I'm not using "scripture to defend scripture", there are letters from John, Peter in the NT. Those are accepted letters by them, not only today but also in the first century. And the letter from Polycarp, Bishop of the church at Smyrna I also linked. Polycarp was the Apostle John's direct disciple.

So explain to me why these apostles and their disciples (Polycarp and Clement) never said that Paul was a false teacher. Peter affirms Paul in 2nd Peter. John doesn't call Paul out as a false teacher when calling out other false teachers, Polycarp and Clement quote Paul a lot and they learned directly from Pater and John.

Explain this, please.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Please tell me when you are done biting your tail, dude. The true st. Paulus is Sergius Paulus and he was an honorable man. Saulus was the like of a Gestapo agent, a counter intelligence operative working for the Sanhedrin and «The Elders» to track down the Christians and make them testify in the forums and arenas— and eventually to the circus where they were tossed to be devoured by wild animals or whatever worse thing they could plot.You forget it was illegal to be a Christian. «st. Paul» makes them all testify in the arenas, supplying further evidence of their «heathen heresy»
edit on 28-6-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You're didn't even address my questions. Specifically, why do you think Peter affirms Paul as a beloved brother, and why didn't John write about his as a false apostle and a deceiver by name when he names others, and why does Peter and John's direct disciples Polycarp and Clement quote from and speak highly of Paul? Wouldn't Peter or John teach their respective understudies that Paul was a false teacher?


Well for starters, many people believe 2 peter wasn't peter at all... i know your beliefs on it so no need to explain but that is one explanation. Even though you believe it was directly from peter because of the roughness of it, many including myself disagree it is authentic, just like many of Pauls letters

Why didn't anyone call him out?

Probably because of his position as a Pharisee, and a roman citizen... And his ability to rile up crowds... Paul was dangerous as evidenced by the death of Stephen. Not to mention the fact that he was brilliant, highly educated in both greek mythology, and OT scripture... im sure he knew the scriptures better then anyone

And... IF you read Johns letters, not the gospel... read closely... I believe John Knew what Paul was about but was afraid to call him out by name... so it did it candidly in his letters


edit on 28-6-2016 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Yes, many people BELIEVE that 2nd Peter wasn't written by Peter, they point to the very rough Greek of it compared to 1st Peter and the use of Greek terms that aren't used in 1st Peter. It's been explained that Peter's other 2 works contained in the NT were not written by the hand of Peter, he was illiterate until late in his life. John Mark wrote his gospel account and Silvanus was his amanuensis for 1st Peter. It even says that in the text of 1st Peter (1 Peter 5:12), that it was written by his "ready writer" (paid amanuensis).

2nd Peter was penned by Peter himself, in a prison cell, just as a final letter right before his execution in Rome. Yes, scholars are fully aware there are structural and grammatical differences between 1st and 2nd Peter, and it's because Silvanus wrote 1st Peter and Peter wrote 2nd Peter himself.

And you saying nobody called him out doesn't pass water, by the time John was writing his letters and Revelation, Paul had been dead for 30 years. By the time Polycarp wrote his epistle to the Philippians Paul had been dead for 50-80 years. Polycarp called out Marcion by name and he was alive with hundreds of followers, he was a living threat not long-dead Paul.

All my questions remain. Why was Paul affirmed by Peter, Polycarp, and Clement? Why didn't John call out Paul or tell Polycarp he was a false teacher?




edit on 28-6-2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Please tell me when you are done biting your tail, dude. The true st. Paulus is Sergius Paulus and he was an honorable man. Saulus was the like of a Gestapo agent, a counter intelligence operative working for the Sanhedrin and «The Elders» to track down the Christians and make them testify in the forums and arenas— and eventually to the circus where they were tossed to be devoured by wild animals or whatever worse thing they could plot.You forget it was illegal to be a Christian. «st. Paul» makes them all testify in the arenas, supplying further evidence of their «heathen heresy»


No, Sergius Paulus was a Gentile governor of the island of Cyprus. That was the man Paul was trying to preach the gospel to when the sorcerer was opposing him. It says that right in the text of Acts 13. Try a modern English translation, ISV is very good:

Acts 13 ISV



edit on 28-6-2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
what does this have to do with the genesis paradox? so far it seems like the op has made a solid argument, paul or no paul.
edit on 28-6-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Here is my thoughts, if people don't get Paul or don't want to read his books, then don't. Don't even read any of the New Testament. The apostles and 1st century church taught Jesus as the Messiah from the LXX Old Testament.

Don't like that Paul taught that Jesus died for us all, for our sins? Okay, don't read Paul, you can read 1 Peter 1:18 instead. Or 1 John 2:1-2. So if Paul bothers you, the same gospel is taught in the OT and in Peter and John, no biggie.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: TzarChasm

Here is my thoughts, if people don't get Paul or don't want to read his books, then don't. Don't even read any of the New Testament. The apostles and 1st century church taught Jesus as the Messiah from the LXX Old Testament.

Don't like that Paul taught that Jesus died for us all, for our sins? Okay, don't read Paul, you can read 1 Peter 1:18 instead. Or 1 John 2:1-2. So if Paul bothers you, the same gospel is taught in the OT and in Peter and John, no biggie.


how is this relevant to the genesis paradox?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


2nd Peter was penned by Peter himself, in a prison cell, just as a final letter right before his execution in Rome. Yes, scholars are fully aware there are structural and grammatical differences between 1st and 2nd Peter, and it's because Silvanus wrote 1st Peter and Peter wrote 2nd Peter himself.


And mostly all scholars disagree with that notion... widely accepted across the board excluding the usual fundamentalist style scholars. Its far more then just the grammatical structure of the writing.


And you saying nobody called him out doesn't pass water, by the time John was writing his letters and Revelation, Paul had been dead for 30 years. By the time Polycarp wrote his epistle to the Philippians Paul had been dead for 50-80 years. Polycarp called out Marcion by name and he was alive with hundreds of followers, he was a living threat not long-dead Paul.


Well we don't actually know IF Paul was "beheaded" as Ignatius writes, which is the first mention of his death some 50 years after it happened... Im more inclined to believe he wasn't executed, but lived out his life in seclusion after his "mission" was completed. Speculation... yes... but its no worse then a theory written 50 years later

And i didn't say nobody called him out... i said John did, in a way where few would notice...


All my questions remain. Why was Paul affirmed by Peter, Polycarp, and Clement? Why didn't John call out Paul or tell Polycarp he was a false teacher?


2 peter isn't authentic... and as far as polycarp and clement are cooncerned... by that time his writing was already known... he basically started what Christianity became... considering how many competing version of the new religion there were, and how many people were being labeled Heretics in that time... they likely just avoided the issue... or they believed he was a true apostle and ignored the evidence against him for fear of their own lives




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: DISRAELI



a reply to: birdxofxprey
Yes I have, but I will re-phrase it. The nature of evil is to be "that which is outside God's will".


Not speaking for you but clarifying what I have observed, would it be fair to say that the nature of evil is to be "that which is outside God's perfect will?" Would it also be fair to say that God's permissive will was realized when He created evil? I am a bit unclear on this.

I assume that as the heavenly host violated the Creator's perfect will, the original sin was the creation of evil which was embraced by the serpent. Is this the original sin? If so then the original sin was instilled in the creation by not the tree or the serpent but by the celestial creation first.


In my opinion, and according to the Genesis narrative, evil first appears when the "Heavenly Hosts" declared "It is not good....". From that point on, what was "Good" was not "good enough", and Adam was fractured from their tampering. As Adam tried to reconcile a previously unknown and hidden aspect of himself, confusion and chaos were allowed to take hold.
edit on 28-6-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: DISRAELI



a reply to: birdxofxprey
Yes I have, but I will re-phrase it. The nature of evil is to be "that which is outside God's will".


Not speaking for you but clarifying what I have observed, would it be fair to say that the nature of evil is to be "that which is outside God's perfect will?" Would it also be fair to say that God's permissive will was realized when He created evil? I am a bit unclear on this.

I assume that as the heavenly host violated the Creator's perfect will, the original sin was the creation of evil which was embraced by the serpent. Is this the original sin? If so then the original sin was instilled in the creation by not the tree or the serpent but by the celestial creation first.


In my opinion, and according to the Genesis narrative, evil first appears when the "Heavenly Hosts" declared "It is not good....". From that point on, what was "Good" was not "good enough", and Adam was fractured from their tampering. As Adam tried to reconcile a previously unknown and hidden aspect of himself, confusion and chaos were allowed to take hold.


their inaction allowed those events to unfold. with awareness and resources, comes responsibility. and there is either supreme negligence or ulterior purpose at work in this narrative, wherein lies the paradox. how is an omnipotent being negligent? thats impossible. but if there is an ulterior purpose, then this implies deception. how does a benevolent parent lie to its children about what evil is? this too is an impossibility. something does not add up and the op outlines it very neatly.
edit on 28-6-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm



their inaction allowed those events to unfold.


HAha....[They] sort of remind of the chorus of a Greek tragedy. You know, those shadowy people standing near the wings, watching and commenting on the Hero's plight....

"Oh Man (Adam), now look at what you have made [the] God(s) do!" "Poor God(s)"....



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join