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.
Peter was crucified upside down. His request. His family was killed too.
Peter was greater than Paul and so was James.
This is documented. Historically by the heresiologists about Paul how they rejected him as apostate
Why is this a polemic against Peter pro Paul? You think he is a hero?
jewishencyclopedia: Gentile
Present Status of the Gentile
With the conversion of the Gentile to Christianity or to Islam, the heathen and pagan of the civilized or semi-civilized world has become almost extinct, and the restrictions placed on the ancient Gentile are not applicable to the Gentile of the present day, except in so far as to consider him a Noachian observingall moral laws, in contradistinction to the Jew, who as one of the chosen people observes in addition the Mosaic laws. That the laws against the Gentile as a barbarian were not entirely expunged from the rabbinic literature after the advent of Christianity, was due to the persecutions and the barbaric treatment of the Jews in the Middle Ages. The gradual decrease of animosity may, however, be noted by comparing the various codes and collections of response
Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah.
Inasmuch as the Jews had their own distinct jurisdiction, it would have been unwise to reveal their laws to the Gentiles, for such knowledge might have operated against the Jews in their opponents' courts. Hence the Talmud prohibited the teaching to a Gentile of the Torah, "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deut. xxxiii. 4). R. Johanan says of one so teaching: "Such a person deserves death" (an idiom used to express indignation). "It is like placing an obstacle before the blind" (Sanh. 59a; Ḥag. 13a). And yet if a Gentile study the Law for the purpose of observing the moral laws of Noah, R. Meïr says he is as good as a high priest, and quotes: "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them" (Lev. xviii. 5). The text does not specify an Israelite or a Levite or a priest, but simply "a man"—even a Gentile ('Ab. Zarah 26a).
...
the more plausible reason advanced by Maimonides, who says: "The principle is, one is not permitted to make innovations in religion or to create new commandments. He has the privilege to become a true proselyte by accepting the whole Law" ("Yad," Melakim, x. 9). R. Emden (), in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b-34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath.
Peter was the real Apostle to the peoples (Gentile is no a concept in the Greek it just means nations or peoples and it isn't so racial) chosen by Jesus himself no matter how much you exploit his mistakes. Paul was a snitch, kidnapper/Jailer and murderer for hire for the Sadducees and Romans. You think he is great because he pretended to have a vision and feigned conversion only to later turn on the Nazarenes and develop a hatred of James who is universally recorded as Most Righteous of all men of his day...and a jealousy of Peter who went on his own to Rome and baptized thousands??? Paul was a villain with no redeemable qualities.Text
Well, look back on what he accused the Pharisee's of....their father was the DEVIL. Who did they follow and obey? That would be Yahweh. So, Jesus called them out on their god being the devil himself. Interesting.
originally posted by: craig732
a reply to: NOTurTypical
So you are saying those laws are still in effect for "the children of Israel"?
originally posted by: SoulSurfer
The only moment killing anyone is justified or perhaps passable (and that is a very narrow line) is in self defense.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
originally posted by: craig732
No, I am trying to understand why christians follow some parts of the bible but ignore other parts.
Perhaps the best answer is that they are following the parts that are good and ignoring the parts that are bad, such as the stoning of adulterers.It's called discernment. I take it you would approve of this policy. Or why would you not approve?
originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor
Well, look back on what he accused the Pharisee's of....their father was the DEVIL. Who did they follow and obey? That would be Yahweh. So, Jesus called them out on their god being the devil himself. Interesting.
Are you saying that the Devil is Yahweh? That is the way I interpreted your above statement. Maybe I misunderstood you but is that what you believe?
The Pharisees who Jesus debated were of the Devil but that does not mean all Pharisees were of the same mindset. Now if you had said Sadducee's then I would agree but Pharisees who accepted Jesus as the Christ have the same Father as Jesus had. Jesus as flesh was not God but Jesus as the "Word" was the Creator of all both visible and invisible as is understood in the 1st chapter of John. The "Word" was not "The Most High EL" but "The Most High El" did not create this universe. So who is this Yahweh that you call the Devil?
originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor
originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: nomoredemsorreps
The fact is, the Council of Nicaea pretty much picked and chose what books would be included, and which VERSION of those books would be included.
That's not a fact at all, not even close. The Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of scripture. It was specifically convened to address the Arian heresy in Alexandria, also to settle on a date for Easter, and to appoint bishops. Dan Brown said that the Council of Nicaea got together to determine what books would be allowed in the NT canon, but it was simply sensationalism and his book was fiction.
The point though, is that a bunch of MEN decided what books would be included and which wouldn't. It continued on throughout the ages.
Here's the kicker for me...Christians believe God would micromanage and protect "His Word" down to the tiniest detail...causing men (or basically violating that free will we're all supposed to have) to write everything down, word for word, just as He said....yet, He can't take time out to 'micromanage" this planet. Like, a little girl who is being raped and brutalized, or a child being blown to pieces in a war he or she has no control over, or that little kid in Africa, dying from starvation and lack of clean water (with flies buzzing all around it while it dies), or the zillions of other things that are so f'ed up on this planet, it boggles the mind.
But YEA...that ole "Holy Word of God" is going to come through unscathed, dang it...because it's the only thing humanity has to tell it how to behave. God doesn't have to do anything else to help us...just give us "HIS WORD" so we know we are all going to be damned if we don't follow it.
Sorry, but something is truly rotten about that whole picture.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: enterthestage
Neither.
I don't agree with homosexuality. But in this day I am not commanded to kill them or adulterers.
originally posted by: jjkenobi
Instead of asking why Christians DON'T kill homosexuals and adulterers, why don't you ask WHY Muslims DO kill homosexuals and "honor kill" adulterers.
originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: craig732
I noticed you left out the one about stoning a disobedient child.
Or maybe you don't agree with "honor killings" like the rest of the "radical religious conservatives".
originally posted by: AaronOfEther
Can you really say "I believe" if you're willing to lie about believing?