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.

 

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

page: 27
19
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio
a reply to: mysticalmetalhippie

The word of God says this and from some of the Apostles seeing you despise Paul's writings. Mind you Peter and Jude are speaking about today just as much in the past. 2Peter 2:1-2 ¶ But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Peter 2:10 ¶ But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation;even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


It's well known that the Church of Rome acknowledges that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphal since the 2nd or 3rd century.

Peter didn't say that he endorsed Paul and neither does "hard to understand" no matter who wrote it. Peter didn't write it though.

Paul's "teachings" are garbage and I have already shown why and how, provided the passages that prove that he is a false prophet and enemy of the Way.

I like the ''Catholic Epistles" because they are about false prophets especially Paul's ''Faith justifies", vicarious atonement doctrine .




17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jude 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.


How did the Lord Buy them?
Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,


Paul's teaching lines up with the Apostles when it comes to the sacrificial blood of Christ Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


Ok, the Bible says that, what is your point?

Anyone can quote and highlight but you offer no explanation just claimed that Paul's and the Apostles teachings ''line up." You also claimed that you know what the Apostles were thinking and writing it for all generations which still doesn't explain why the quotes you provided are relevant or how they "line up" with Paul.

Unlikely since they are known to have not gotten along in Acts and Paul's Epistles where he repeatedly talks trash about the Apostles as I've shown already.

The Catholic Epistles are far removed from Paul and not many scholars believe they are all authentic but you can gloss over the tension between them and pretend it doesn't exist.

It did and I have already more than proven it.

They really don't (line up), especially James and John, John revealing Paul is an antichrist and James response about Paul's teachings like faith only justification (Faith without works is dead says James) and how they are wrong.

Jude's false prophets include Paul as far as I can tell.

As far as your concerned I think I have sufficiently proven you know Paul is a false prophet. After seeing the evidence you can't help it, it's overwhelming.

Your welcome. Paul was a eunuch.
edit on 12-10-2016 by Malocchio because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

see you always have an answer but no faith in God preserving his word as he promised.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


Chestre Jon:

You claim that Paul's teachings are compatible with the Apostles who resided in Asia. Peter went to Rome and the Apostles traveled but at the time John wrote Revelation there were 7 Churches all in Asia that outright rejected Paul as he admits:


"This you know, alll those who are in Asia haved turned away from me."

The main Church in Jerusalem (Asia) last saw Paul when he was undergoing a Nazirite purification ritual after being accused of false teachings.

I believe Roman loyal to soldiers picked him up to go before the Sanhedrin. He lies to them about talking to Jesus and talks like a self righteous d&#ch3.

Then he requested an audience with Caesar relying on a man to save him which shows Christ was not with him and Paul didn't believe Jesus would rescue him.

Acts is a joke of a book that tries presenting Paul as a team player but you analyze and cross reference with his Epistles it's obvious that ''Luke" was hired to write a prop piece for Rome but thought he'd leave enough clues and contradiction for an astute reader to figure out that they didn't get along and that Paul was even summoned to Jerusalem and subjected to punishment for false teachings by James.


Then the 4 commands from the Holy Spirit through James decided on 4 easy requirements for goyim converts. One is to not "eat meat sacrificed to an Idol."

Paul says it's Ok to do it as long as your "spiritually weak brothers" (read Apostles and disciples of Jesus and the 12) weren't around.

Calling the disciples now with James, John and Simon Cephas "spiritually weak" is not compatible with their teachings and neither is eating idol meat BUT:

Paul says it's Ok. He eats the meat and teaches it's OK to do when the disciples in Asia aren't around (read don't get caught).


Jesus says this is the teaching of Balaam and condemns whoever teaches this and Paul teaches this.


Paul's teachings are CONTRADICTORY and in opposition to those of the Apostles from Jesus who Paul never met.

I just showed you proof if you read the Bible you know this is all true.


Nice try though. Maybe try something more than quotes and a few words of your own.

You say their teachings are compatible, I proved you wrong in mostly my words backed up by the Bible. I don't need to obsessively quote passages that don't support my case as though they actually did.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

see you always have an answer but no faith in God preserving his word as he promised.



He never promised to do that, it's mythology and tradition to say that but he never said that to anyone.

I don't need him to preserve a book. have all the books I need including the Bible which I don't reject.

Paul's story is one of rejected disciple turned rogue traitor and collaborator. And of a false prophet.

I don't need the writings of the NT to be all Gospels and Apostles. If God wants a false prophet in the Bible even his actual teachings that do contradict Jesus as a test I am cool with it.


Having the answers is the result of faith leading to Wisdom.


The best you can do now is say I have no faith but you're wrong and desperate. I don't need to show off my faith in God because God is aware already and it seems pleased as I've a great life and God Most High is my Friend.

I have SO MUCH Faith I can decide that the New Testament is a farce and still love God for the good teachings of Jesus and I love Wisdom literature from the OT too.

Saying anything about my faith is desperate but you have to admit that I have the right answers in the process as you lack any rebuttal.

edit on 12-10-2016 by Malocchio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

Once again you have an opinion but here again is the verse


Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.



edit on 12-10-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I don't care about a humans writings.

That's not God It's a book.

God doesn't communicate like that. Nobody can prove that God told someone thousands of years ago to write that.

If you think he did lol!!!



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

Once again you have an opinion but here again is the verse


Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.




Everything is opinion to you except the Bible.

Not the wisest approach buy your entitled to believe it.

In the absence of proof you're assertion that the Bible is ''preserved word" of God is super opinion 100%.

Nothing you can say or produce indicates that the Bible is more than myth and historical fiction like the Greeks, Babylonians and Persians before them from where their ideas were borrowed.

There is no evidence of the Bible being true while much exists to conclude it is a fable.



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

see you always have an answer but no faith in God preserving his word as he promised.



Do you have ANY other answer than that? Can you even for one remote second, rebut the things pointed out to you??
It's like you are a broken record, stuck on "God's preserved word"....not once have you even debated the points made...nor, had an answer for anything...except quoting Paul's junk.
Do you even know what Jesus taught?? Why don't you quote the SAVIOR you say you follow? Why is it always Paul?



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

Once again you have an opinion but here again is the verse


Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.




Chester, if you are going to quote the OT...realize that the NT hadn't even been compiled yet! You are including the New with the Old....and you don't even hold to the OLD, because in your mind, those of the "circumcision" were under the KINGDOM law, while those of Paul's group, are under "grace". Seriously??



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

Once again you have an opinion but here again is the verse


Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.




Chester, if you are going to quote the OT...realize that the NT hadn't even been compiled yet! You are including the New with the Old....and you don't even hold to the OLD, because in your mind, those of the "circumcision" were under the KINGDOM law, while those of Paul's group, are under "grace". Seriously??



Apparently logic is not as important as Chesters opinions, however nonsensical they are.

All he apparently knows is the Bible was preserved by God only to be revoked by Paul later.

Only the Jews have access to the Kingdom of God and ALL non Jews the kingdom of grace with Paul.

He doesn't care that Peter and other Apostles/disciples also preached outside of Judea and the Hebrews to him Paul is the exclusive ''apostle" to the Gentiles and the rest of the Apostles, the true Apostles, are of little to no consequence including Jesus himself.

He can not come to terms with the fact that Paul taught it was OK to eat Idol meat and Jesus condemned it.

He doesn't care that Paul admits his rejection in Asia.

That Revelation counts 12 Apostles leaving the possibility of a 13th out of the question.

That Paul and only Paul and maybe the author of Luke are the only ones who call Paul Apostle.

That Paul insists he is the father of his disciples.

And Jesus said call no man your father for you have one in heaven.


Pretty much proof that what Paul taught came not from Christ.

And according to Paul not from any man.


The only possibility now is he made it all up.


Everything that is not Chester's opinion too is merely the opinion of man

His opinion however is always fact and he is never wrong.

Like every Paulianna Christian.
edit on 12-10-2016 by Malocchio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

Once again you have an opinion but here again is the verse


Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.




Chester, if you are going to quote the OT...realize that the NT hadn't even been compiled yet! You are including the New with the Old....and you don't even hold to the OLD, because in your mind, those of the "circumcision" were under the KINGDOM law, while those of Paul's group, are under "grace". Seriously??



Apparently logic is not as important as Chesters opinions, however nonsensical they are.

All he apparently knows is the Bible was preserved by God only to be revoked by Paul later.

Only the Jews have access to the Kingdom of God and ALL non Jews the kingdom of grace with Paul.

He doesn't care that Peter and other Apostles/disciples also preached outside of Judea and the Hebrews to him Paul is the exclusive ''apostle" to the Gentiles and the rest of the Apostles, the true Apostles, are of little to no consequence including Jesus himself.

He can not come to terms with the fact that Paul taught it was OK to eat Idol meat and Jesus condemned it.

He doesn't care that Paul admits his rejection in Asia.

That Revelation counts 12 Apostles leaving the possibility of a 13th out of the question.

That Paul and only Paul and maybe the author of Luke are the only ones who call Paul Apostle.

That Paul insists he is the father of his disciples.

And Jesus said call no man your father for you have one in heaven.


Pretty much proof that what Paul taught came not from Christ.

And according to Paul not from any man.


The only possibility now is he made it all up.


Everything that is not Chester's opinion too is merely the opinion of man

His opinion however is always fact and he is never wrong.

Like every Paulianna Christian.


Yup..
But, that's what indoctrination will do.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Paul wrote bout half or so of what is deemed NT SCRIPTURE.

If Paul were false, then that would mean Jesus was a false/incompetent "Christ/Messiah."

Which is the conclusion that servants of Satan hope all will arrive at.

No way the Messiah could let a deceivers words become "Scripture"

The critics of Paul are servants of Satan.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnPrewett

Lol... So is everyone that doesn't adhere to christian dogma according to them...

One that testifies of himself... And must constantly state "im not lying" is suspicious to say the very least

Then again... The title of this thread really says it all...

IF Paul created the religion, why wouldn't his material be accepted

Its much easier to have "faith alone" then to follow Jesus' words




edit on 13-10-2016 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: JohnPrewett

Lol... So is everyone that doesn't adhere to christian dogma according to them...

One that testifies of himself... And must constantly state "im not lying" is suspicious to say the very least

Then again... The title of this thread really says it all...

IF Paul created the religion, why wouldn't his material be accepted

Its much easier to have "faith alone" then to follow Jesus' words





Indeed.

I believe that Christ should be emulated as much as he is revered and respected.

By elevating him to God status Christianity lost the incentive to be like him. As a human he lived righteously teaching by example. He walked the walk.

Christians don't try in general. They think it impossible. The only good thing about Christ to the Christian is what his death profits them.

They think of Salvation as something Christ taught when he maybe uses the word or a form once. It was not his mission or stated goal to die for the sins of the world.

Taking the ressurection as a literal historical event (rather foolishly) they believe that because they believe it really happened they get to go to heaven.

Ressurection in its original allegorical meaning is the apex of enlightenment not night of the living dead.

Actually, Ascension is the Apex, allegorically.

Ditto for born again.


(post by Malocchio removed for a manners violation)

posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnPrewett


Ha Satan (The Adversary in English) aka the Accuser would be proud that you are emulating him and Paul by making false accusations like:

" Critics of Paul are servants of Satan."

Exactly what Satan would say as he loves the decieved. They believe anything and are aware of nothing other than their misery.

A misery they wish to inflict on others but what you don't realize is up is down.

You think that by saying you're a Christian and calling people soS that you're righteous but any mildly intelligent person knows that you are a false accuser who serves Satan without realizing it.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio


They think of Salvation as something Christ taught when he maybe uses the word or a form once.


But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved




posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Malocchio


They think of Salvation as something Christ taught when he maybe uses the word or a form once.


But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved



Well I think enduring until the end involves a BIT more than just faith.

It's a work, a deed. That means ''faith without" is dead (not faith).

I am sure you had that in mind though already.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

I have seen "the end"

It's not what most believe




posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
If Paul were a deceiver, then that would mean Jesus caused His own people to be misled for some 1900 years BY SCRIPTURE.

Which is what Satan wants all to believe.

Critics of Paul are just anti-Christ that are too shrewd to openly frontally attack Jesus.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join