Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Joecroft
Just wanted to stress that the most crucial points regarding the subject of my previous response to you are made in the 2 videos of which I just shared the 2nd part now. It is rather demonstrative when you're responding to my commentary without even acknowledging the presence of these crucial points for consideration and possible discussion. Making me think back and cautious regarding my commentary on page 28. In particular my quotation of:

Proverbs 29:9:
9 When a wise man enters into a controversy with a fool, There will be ranting and ridicule, but no satisfaction.

Not implying anything, just saying I'd like to avoid falling into that trap and someone only responding to what I'm saying and not what I'm pointing towards (and possible personal research and investigation) seems conducive for it. Especially if the main topic they pick was just a sidepoint and caveat regarding a video connected to a video I shared that you didn't respond to, that is... the main points in the video I shared. You chose to respond to the only caveat I mentioned regarding which terminology I didn't agree with, in the video I didn't share (part 2) for that reason mainly; not to trigger a useless debate about it but to at least make people aware it's a misleading terminology for which I've now given a lot more details why (and just in case someone was going to watch part 2). Which is related to something I already shared in the initial comment and when bolding the word "through", which is a major aspect of deliberate translational deception. "through" is changed to "by" in specific places and translations, it's like a trail of breadcrumbs that is well described in the bible who is responsible for this deliberate deception. The other reasons for not linking part 2 are some other caveats I have with it that I didn't feel like spelling out to provide even more ammo for those who might be interested in debate and arguing about the trivial to ignore or not have to think about the big issues here: Jesus was created by Jehovah who is his God and Father, as both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures show, including the letters of Paul, the book of John and the book of Revelation written by John, unlike the implications from others here, see further below. The videos I shared have some clues regarding deliberate deception regarding this point, a conspiracy if you will. Again, I bolded "might be" to indicate that I'm not implying that that is the case but that I'm thinking out loud regarding possibilities related to my commentary on page 28 (not just the verse quoted above and I made 2 comments with bible quotations that are useful to consider at all times but especially when conversing on ATS).

Here's part 2 cause it doesn't matter now anymore, probably should have never mentioned my caveat with it if I wasn't going to share it anyway:

Caveat: regarding what he says at the end, for me the main reason is the fact that he is the "firstborn of all creation" that is the biggest clue that he was created by Jehovah (and Proverbs 8:22 and Revelation 3:14), and since he doesn't mention any details about that other clue he mentions at the end, I recommend watching the videos mentioned in the comment I found and linked further below in this comment that also mention a lot about the word "preeminent" that Paul also uses in the same chapter and how this is obscured by Trinitarian scholars and theologians (the flock often doesn't know about these details, much like things go when evolutionary philosophies are being taught and promoted; inconvenient details are left out from the teachings and when someone starts asking questions about it all the usual tricks are used and behaviour is displayed to not address them logically and reasonably, see commentary on page 28 again and the article in my signature, including the page before it).

It really helps if you watch part 1 first (just click "watch on youtube" and it should be easy to find if you don't want to go back to page 52). This one may be helpful as well before accusing Paul or the texts at John 1:1 and elsewhere (or considering the comments from others doing that) of teaching something different about Jesus than the Hebrew Scriptures; I saw some commentary about that, don't remember who it was, someone who likes the way you think about Paul and the book of John and when they also said something about the book of John not being written by John; also note that in my previous comment there is a reference to Isaiah 9:6 where Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God”, in the Hebrew Scriptures):

Ah, that's nice, found the comment with the rest of the videos that correct some misleading things from the video "The Created Messiah part 2" (also the caveats I didn't mention). I'm talking about the videos about Colossians 1:15-18 (in that comment starting right below the video "The Created Messiah part 1").

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

not none of Paul's writing inspired of God go against Paul's teaching for us today who are not under the kingdom Gospel. the very differences in the gospels you see is because the Gospel o the kingdom is not for today. To place anyone under it today is to bring a curse upon yourself and those who would attempt to believe it.

But don't you worry the time will be soon and the kingdom gospel will be taken up again. The problem is under it during the great tribulation not may Gentiles get saved, because they will be given over to the strong delusion and will not come to Christ. Because many of the gentile nations will be antisemitic Jew hating anti-christs.

a reply to: Malocchio

you can deny the truth all day long. You will still be where you were before you thought you came to Christ. LOST!

a reply to: Malocchio

the only thing irrational is your opinions.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: whereislogic

Originally posted by Joecroft
How can you say the verses in Proverbs 8 are not talking about God and a co-creator…?

Verses 27 to 29 talk about the aspects of creation which were formed and then right after verse 30 states, “Then I was the craftsmen at his side…”…

Which means the “Co-creator” (the craftsmen), was right there by Gods side, helping God with creation from the beginning…

Originally posted by whereislogic
It doesn't mean "Co-creator". The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force.
Genesis 1:2:

2 Now the earth was formless and desolate,* and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep,* and God’s active force* was moving about over the surface of the waters.

If you build a house on your own, who has created that house…?

Try not to conflate the biblical usages of the words that are used to translate to either "build" or "create" (or perhaps more importantly the term "the Creator" that I talked about rather than just anyone who creates something in our common modern day usage of that verb).
Builder, Building: Insight, Volume 1

The verb “build” means construct or make by assembling materials. The Hebrew word for “build” is ba·nahʹ. From it comes bin·yanʹ (“building”; Eze 41:12), miv·nehʹ (“structure”; Eze 40:2), and tav·nithʹ (“pattern” [Ex 25:40]; “representation” [De 4:16]; “architectural plan” [1Ch 28:11]). Oi·ko·do·meʹo is the common Greek verb for “build”; the related noun form oi·ko·do·meʹ means “building.”—Mt 16:18; 1Co 3:9.

Jehovah God as Creator of all things is the Builder par excellence. (Heb 3:4; Job 38:4-6) The Logos (Word), who became Jesus Christ, was the Master Worker that He used in creating all things. (Joh 1:1-3; Col 1:13-16; Pr 8:30) Man cannot create but must build with materials already existent. The ability to plan, to manufacture instruments, and to build was planted in man at his creation and was manifested early in human history.—Ge 1:26; 4:20-22.
...

Creation: Insight, Volume 1

CREATION

The act of creating, or causing the existence of, someone or something. It can also refer to that which has been created or brought into existence. The Hebrew ba·raʼʹ and the Greek ktiʹzo, both meaning “create,” are used exclusively with reference to divine creation.

Throughout the Scriptures Jehovah God is identified as the Creator. He is “the Creator of the heavens, . . . the Former of the earth and the Maker of it.” (Isa 45:18) He is “the Former of the mountains and the Creator of the wind” (Am 4:13) and is “the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them.” (Ac 4:24; 14:15; 17:24) “God . . . created all things.” (Eph 3:9) Jesus Christ recognized Jehovah as the One who created humans, making them male and female. (Mt 19:4; Mr 10:6) Hence, Jehovah is fittingly and uniquely called “the Creator.”—Isa 40:28.

It is because of God’s will that all things “existed and were created.” (Re 4:11) Jehovah, who has existed for all time, was alone before creation had a beginning.—Ps 90:1, 2; 1Ti 1:17.

While Jehovah, who is a Spirit (Joh 4:24; 2Co 3:17), has always existed, that is not true of the matter of which the universe is made. Hence, when creating the literal heavens and earth, Jehovah did not use preexistent material. This is clear from Genesis 1:1, which says: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If matter had always existed, it would have been inappropriate to use the term “beginning” with reference to material things. However, after creating the earth, God did form “from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” (Ge 2:19) He also formed man “out of dust from the ground,” blowing into his nostrils the breath of life so that the man became a living soul.—Ge 2:7.

Appropriately Psalm 33:6 says: “By the word of Jehovah the heavens themselves were made, and by the spirit of his mouth all their army.” While the earth was yet “formless and waste,” with “darkness upon the surface of the watery deep,” it was God’s active force that was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters. (Ge 1:2) Thus, God used his active force, or “spirit” (Heb., ruʹach), to accomplish his creative purpose. The things he has created testify not only to his power but also to his Godship. (Jer 10:12; Ro 1:19, 20) And, as Jehovah “is a God, not of disorder, but of peace” (1Co 14:33), his creative work is marked with orderliness rather than chaos or chance. Jehovah reminded Job that He had taken specific steps in founding the earth and barricading the sea and indicated that there exist “statutes of the heavens.” (Job 38:1, 4-11, 31-33) Furthermore, God’s creative and other works are perfect.—De 32:4; Ec 3:14.

Jehovah’s first creation was his “only-begotten Son” (Joh 3:16), “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Re 3:14) This one, “the firstborn of all creation,” was used by Jehovah in creating all other things, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, “the things visible and the things invisible.” (Col 1:15-17) John’s inspired testimony concerning this Son, the Word, is that “all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence,” and the apostle identifies the Word as Jesus Christ, who had become flesh. (Joh 1:1-4, 10, 14, 17) As wisdom personified, this One is represented as saying, “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way,” and he tells of his association with God the Creator as Jehovah’s “master worker.” (Pr 8:12, 22-31) In view of the close association of Jehovah and his only-begotten Son in creative activity and because that Son is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4), it was evidently to His only-begotten Son and master worker that Jehovah spoke in saying, “Let us make man in our image.”—Ge 1:26.

After creating his only-begotten Son, Jehovah used him in bringing the heavenly angels into existence. This preceded the founding of the earth, as Jehovah revealed when questioning Job and asking him: “Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth . . . when the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause?” (Job 38:4-7) It was after the creation of these heavenly spirit creatures that the material heavens and earth and all elements were made, or brought into existence. And, since Jehovah is the one primarily responsible for all this creative work, it is ascribed to him.—Ne 9:6; Ps 136:1, 5-9.

The Scriptures, in stating, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Ge 1:1), leave matters indefinite as to time. This use of the term “beginning” is therefore unassailable, regardless of the age scientists may seek to attach to the earthly globe and to the various planets and other heavenly bodies. The actual time of creation of the material heavens and earth may have been billions of years ago.

a reply to: Joecroft

I disagree, Acts of Paul and Thecla is not flattering to Paul at all.

And yes, in Peter and Paul, Paul is subservient to Peter.

No, I don't believe that Jesus made post Ascension appearances to anyone but I do believe the stories about the Apostles and his appearances were meant to offset the claim of Paul for the Jewish community of ''Christians."

Thecla may begin as a follower of Paul but he doesn't treat her very well and whether or not the end says she was buried near her tomb doesn't get rid of the fact that he refused to Baptize her and instead God intervened and did it himself.

Which is like God overruling Paul, is.

a reply to: Joecroft

Don't forget that even the Canonical literature paints Paul in a positive light, unless you read between the lines that is.

Regardless the most important and anti Pauline of the Clementina is Homilies and Recognitions which scholars have long noticed that Simon Magus serves as a pseudonym for Paul, it's rather obvious actually.

The Epistle of Peter to James is also anti Pauline and the Paul in Peter and Paul is practically a spectator in that ridiculous episode that was no doubt written to support the notion that Peter and Paul were friends.

Which goes for 2 Peter as well and that one Apocryphal Acts with Peter and Paul is the most ridiculous book in the Apocrypha placing them in the audience of Nero.

I insist that Paul was subservient to Peter in it though, and that it is the most ridiculous book of all the Apocrypha, basically a prop piece.

The rest of the Apocrypha however is much more interesting than the New Testament and if any of the Apocrypha was designed to promote Paul it wouldn't be Apocrypha, it would be Canon.

Choosing the Canon had nothing to do with historicity and everything to do with Paul and his pagan Christology.

originally posted by: Malocchio

No, I don't believe that Jesus made post Ascension appearances to anyone

You believe Jesus came in the flesh and ascended to the heavens but you believe it is impossible that he was born of a virgin?

In the Gospel of Thomas you have Jesus returning to talk to the couple in verse 11 that Thomas had just anointed. In terms of Orthodox scripture you also have this:

"...Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

In the Acts of Thomas that is what he is doing, preaching the gospel throughout the towns of God, and then Jesus shows himself to the people that Thomas was teaching.

Choosing the Canon had nothing to do with historicity and everything to do with Paul and his pagan Christology.

What are your biggest issues regarding the writings of Paul?

a reply to: cooperton

You really don't need to worry about my beliefs, if I said it, I meant it. Take it as it is.

The most legitimate Gospel in my opinion is the Gospel of Thomas, for the record.

But I don't for a minute believe that everything written was written to be a historical record.

Mythology has a purpose and the less literally you interpret it the more correctly you will understand the meaning.

I hate literalist interpretations, the good stuff is said esoterically and in parables that need to be interpreted.

Combining mythology with history was how scripture was written. It's not called history for a good reason.

All the mythology of the ancient world has esoteric meaning that some get and some don't.

That's how it is.

a reply to: cooperton

And if you want my issues regarding Paul there are 50 pages that I have contributed to a great deal.

You can read for yourself. I don't feel like repeating myself.

Calling them false Apostles disguised as Apostles of Christ and comparing them to Satan is probably my biggest issue though.

I can't think of anything more damning to Paul than that, how it even made the Bible is a mystery to me as there is no way to deny what is written or who he was talking about.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You don't even answer questions put to you.

How can the only preserved word be the 1611 KJV when not everyone speaks English?

Do Jews have to translate from the KJV to Hebrew from English if they don't speak English?

Or do they have to learn English?

It's a legitimate question that you would rather avoid answering.


What about Indian Christianity? Certainly the so called Thomas Christians have to have a Bible in their own language, right?

So do only English speaking, KJV using Christians go to Heaven or what?

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: cooperton

I hate literalist interpretations, the good stuff is said esoterically and in parables that need to be interpreted.

The True Word of God is factual on all layers of reality - literal, symbolic, and metaphorical. If this is not literally True then it is a lie. Without this as a foundation, the deeper metaphorical truths are meaningless if it is not actually real. Even his parables are literal descriptions of the metaphysics of Creation and the human condition. God as a vine, a gate, a land-owner, etc.

The Quran mentions Adam and Eve multiple times, is their existence not commonly believed by Muslims? If Adam and Eve were not real people, then Jesus's sacrifice to atone for their fall was erroneous.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: cooperton

I hate literalist interpretations, the good stuff is said esoterically and in parables that need to be interpreted.

The True Word of God is factual on all layers of reality - literal, symbolic, and metaphorical. If this is not literally True then it is a lie. Without this as a foundation, the deeper metaphorical truths are meaningless if it is not actually real. Even his parables are literal descriptions of the metaphysics of Creation and the human condition. God as a vine, a gate, a land-owner, etc.

The Quran mentions Adam and Eve multiple times, is their existence not commonly believed by Muslims? If Adam and Eve were not real people, then Jesus's sacrifice to atone for their fall was erroneous.

What do you want from me? I answered your questions, take it or leave it.

I am more mystic than religious, I am not dumb though, I know that the creation story in the Bible was borrowed from Mesopotamian sources so obviously I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

People like you want to force mythology into history and Muslim or not I am free to esoterically interpret anything I want.

That is how the Bible was written, a literal meaning for the herd and an inner meaning for the ''initiated."

You miss the whole purpose thinking the Bible is literal and historical.

originally posted by: Malocchio

What do you want from me? I answered your questions, take it or leave it.

I held a similar belief to you at one time and was expressing the logic that ultimately made me realize the Word must be literally true as well.

I am more mystic than religious, I am not dumb though, I know that the creation story in the Bible was borrowed from Mesopotamian sources so obviously I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

can you point me to these mesopotamian sources?

People like you want to force mythology into history and Muslim or not I am free to esoterically interpret anything I want.

It is not forcing anything, it is believing and understanding the testimony of the prophets from the Most High.

That is how the Bible was written, a literal meaning for the herd and an inner meaning for the ''initiated."

Don't you see this wouldn't make sense? If Adam and Eve were not real, and thus the fall of humankind was not real, then Jesus's sacrifice would be meaningless. The symbolic and inner meaning is spiritually True... but you are missing the foundation if you don't believe in it historically. In fact, Jesus says he spoke in parables to the masses, whereas he could only speak in plain speech to his close apostles...

It is the initiated who come to understand the literal meaning and how it is directly applicable to our every day life.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Malocchio

What do you want from me? I answered your questions, take it or leave it.

I held a similar belief to you at one time and was expressing the logic that ultimately made me realize the Word must be literally true as well.

You just stated the opposite of logic and by thinking that it must be literally true you have gone backwards.

While there are truths, that doesn't mean every word is or has to be literally true.

That's a trap, a snare that causes a sickness of thinking your way is the only way.

I am more mystic than religious, I am not dumb though, I know that the creation story in the Bible was borrowed from Mesopotamian sources so obviously I don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

can you point me to these mesopotamian sources?

Google it, do you think I am to blame for your not knowing of the Ras Shamra tablets or the Sumerian epic, the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh and just about every Mesopotamian religion before Judaism.

Step your game up and do some research. I can hardly take you seriously if you don't know these things and blindly believe that the OT is a wholly original book.

People like you want to force mythology into history and Muslim or not I am free to esoterically interpret anything I want.

It is not forcing anything, it is believing and understanding the testimony of the prophets from the Most High.

Yeah, I'm good with what your "understanding." Tell it to someone else.

That is how the Bible was written, a literal meaning for the herd and an inner meaning for the ''initiated."

Don't you see this wouldn't make sense? If Adam and Eve were not real, and thus the fall of humankind was not real, then Jesus's sacrifice would be meaningless. The symbolic and inner meaning is spiritually True... but you are missing the foundation if you don't believe in it historically. In fact, Jesus says he spoke in parables to the masses, whereas he could only speak in plain speech to his close apostles...

It is the initiated who come to understand the literal meaning and how it is directly applicable to our every day life.

YOU don't make sense.

I have no interest in your literalism. The Bible is not history or meant to be read literally, you are not listening to anything from the Most High God if you can't face reality.

Religions are esoteric by nature, their truths are no different than Jesus' parables, some people only hear the literal and thus don't hear anything or understand anything.

You clearly have no concept of how Jesus taught, telling stories that weren't actual things that happened in order to impart a greater truth for "Those with ears to hear" and ''Eyes to see."

The same applies to the Old Testament, the unenlightened, uninstructed only hear the literal story and accept it as is.

While those with the Spirit understand the deeper meaning.

Buy a Zohar or something, mines in the mail, The Wisdom of the Zohar by Tishby.

Maybe that will help you.

a reply to: cooperton

Further, if you take everything in the Bible as literal, I got knews for you.

Yahweh is a Son of El Elyon who received as an inheritance the nation of Israel from El Elyon (God Most High).

Yahweh is a genocidal, infanticidal, tyrannical god of death and wholesale slaughter of ''inferior" races who terrorizes entire nations and on several occasions accepts human sacrifice (see Jephthah) as a condition of victory.

So go ahead and believe that Yahweh is a good God while accepting without question the horrible things he is said to have done.

Solomon is entirely legendary as is his glorious Kingdom. His name comes from the real life King Shalman-ezer and a god Shalmanu.

Ahayah Asher Ahayah, the name given Moses is the name of the god of Assyria, Asshur.

Asshur is also Ahura Mazda the God of Persia who had a cozy relationship with the Hebrews after the fall of Babylon.

Abraham or BRHM is borrowed from the Sanskrit Brahma, also BRHM.

Both have consorts/wives named Sara/Sarasvati.

I could go on all day pointing out borrowed mythology like Nimrod/Osiris/Amraphel.

But I will leave you to your literalism and erroneous belief in the originality and historicity of the Bible.

From Elohim to the Sons of God, the Prophets and Yahweh, the Father Most High God and Asherah, to the Messiah and false prophet Saul, if you combine Pol and the Syriac Paulis you get the little deciever and The Adversary and Judas, here is what I think about the Bible.

Elohim is a masculine and feminine plural word meaning ''Mighty Ones" and can encompass the Host of Heaven. It's a Canaanite word that today refers to the one God although in Hebrew there are uses of El Shaddai, El Roi, El Elyon a bunch of different epithets but they are all the Canaanite High God El or Illu. Asherah is Els wife and High Godess. The Serpent is revered by the Israelites too so it was not a universal symbol for evil but Wisdom and healing too.

Adam and Lilith were created equal but Lilith was too smart to submit to Adam insisting on equality and when denied invoked the Sacred Name and became a divine but semi demonic consort of Samael, and they are both Serpents, Seraphim (from the Greek Serapis a syncretic Egyptian deity) and the Seraphim and Ophanim are the two Serpent angels the Seraphim burn with Wisdom from God and the Ophanim are a mystery (to me). The Cherubim are the prefered angels with the Archangels being the most powerful.

Jacob wrestled with God to a draw and forced a blessing from him and El named him Israel. Israel was a clever man if not a little crooked, but likeable.

His sons are scum, selling the youngest Joseph into slavery and he ends up in Egypt second in command to Pharoah.

They go on to be a tribe of savages until King Solomon ironically a polytheist organizes heaven on earth while worshipping many gods and marrying 300 women and only after he dies does everything go downhill and Babylon takes them captive and Assyria takes the northern ten tribes while Judah, Levi and Benjamin go to Babylon and after being staunch Yahwist are forced into polytheism.

The Assyrians absorb the ten tribes and only 3 return when Darius and Cyrus take over and restore Judea and the Temple under a now purely monotheistic faith like Persians adopting many of the angelic concepts under Ezra the scribe and Nehemiah who put together the Books of Moses and collected more from new Prophets who wrote until Alexander took over and the Maccabean period then Jesus comes.

Jesus institutes the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven teaching it to 12 disciples called Apostles. It was the hidden from the masses system of enlightenment that he taught upsetting the wrong people he gets killed but ressurects immortal.

Sounds like an allegory of what had been taught in secret since the Egyptians. This path was later subverted and dismantled by a false prophet as predicted only to be understood by those who could withstand and identify the false prophet, the perfect test. If you understand how to receive the Spirit you will pass.

In the end you are judged for what you did while alive fairly. Satan works for God not against him and Judas is not a traitor, he was following orders and possessed by Satan who tempted Jesus, offered him riches in an obvious myth that nobody could have witnessed because power and wealth are not to be ill gained

And Judas and Peter in his denials were following orders.

John has issues.

originally posted by: Malocchio

While there are truths, that doesn't mean every word is or has to be literally true.

This is where you are mistaken. The Word of God is literally the foundation of this world. You are deceived by your reliance on temporal matter, when the True substance is God's Word:

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." (Matthew 24:35)

That's a trap, a snare that causes a sickness of thinking your way is the only way.

These are not my teachings. Whoever is from God sees the Truth in the Word of God.

Google it, do you think I am to blame for your not knowing of the Ras Shamra tablets or the Sumerian epic, the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh and just about every Mesopotamian religion before Judaism.

Step your game up and do some research. I can hardly take you seriously if you don't know these things and blindly believe that the OT is a wholly original book.

Humble yourself and step down from the pedestal. I was curious what evidence you had that the Bible simply took these stories from Mesopotamian history, and how you could possibly prove that it wasn't a case of both of these cultures describing the same historical events.

YOU don't make sense.

I have no interest in your literalism. The Bible is not history or meant to be read literally, you are not listening to anything from the Most High God if you can't face reality.

"he who is believing in him is not judged, but he who is not believing hath been judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Religions are esoteric by nature, their truths are no different than Jesus' parables, some people only hear the literal and thus don't hear anything or understand anything.
You clearly have no concept of how Jesus taught

He had to speak in parables to those who were suffering misunderstanding, but he spoke plainly to the initiated ones. You cannot take the Truth because you don't believe His testimony.

The same applies to the Old Testament, the unenlightened, uninstructed only hear the literal story and accept it as is.

Those who have come to know the truth realize it is literally, metaphorically and spiritually true:

"Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery." St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica

You are perceiving the mystery without the faith to realize that it is also a historical fact. Without having the faith that the Gospel actually happened, how could you believe the impending Kingdom?

a reply to: whereislogic

Originally posted by whereislogic
"a god" is not defined as "a creator" (or doesn't automatically mean "a creator"). The broader definition (or possible definitions and meanings, including nuances in meaning) for the Hebrew and Greek words that have been translated to "God", "gods", "god" and "a god" in English bible translations is quite well defined and discussed in the video I shared about that (first comment you were responding to); the context often makes it more clear which nuance to think about. The Hebrew and Greek words that have been translated as "the Creator" are completely different, are not synonyms, and can hardly be accidentily mistaken or conflated with the word "God" or "a god" just because the subject is related as explained below.

It doesn’t matter how you define “a god” or whether or not in some cases it doesn’t mean “creator” etc…because the verses in Proverbs 8 are clearly describing an entity (Jesus/Son) creating along side God…

If I read a text and it reads, “Kangaroos were flying over the Hill” it doesn’t matter if the definition of a Kangaroo is that it can’t fly, because it’s what the text states that counts!!!…

Originally posted by whereislogic
Jesus was created. He has a beginning (when he was created by Jehovah before his human existence as all the Scriptures about that subject show). He is a god/mighty one. He is not Jehovah or equal to Jehovah, who is his Father and his God. Jehovah has no Father, no God, no equal, no beginning and is not created.

Firstly, I never said Jesus was equal to God the Father; But you’re building a false counter argument here, because Jesus being brought forth or being created by God the Father, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Jesus can co-create along side the Father AFTER he was brought forth; which incidentally, is exactly what those verses in Proverbs 8 indicate…

Also, we know from other scriptures that all things were created through the Father and the Son…but like I was saying in my last reply, things being created through the Son, makes the Son a partaker of that creation himself along side the Father…which means it’s clearly co-creation that’s being described…

Originally posted by whereislogic
Just wanted to stress that the most crucial points regarding the subject of my previous response to you are made in the 2 videos of which I just shared the 2nd part now. It is rather demonstrative when you're responding to my commentary without even acknowledging the presence of these crucial points for consideration and possible discussion.

I didn’t have time to watch the videos, I just responded to your comments…

Plus, I tend not to respond to videos because I don’t know exactly how much and which exact parts of a video that an ATS poster completely agrees with. For that reason I tend to respond directly to the words in their posts…

Originally posted by whereislogic
You chose to respond to the only caveat I mentioned regarding which terminology I didn't agree with, in the video I didn't share (part 2) for that reason mainly; not to trigger a useless debate about it but to at least make people aware it's a misleading terminology for which I've now given a lot more details why (and just in case someone was going to watch part 2). Which is related to something I already shared in the initial comment and when bolding the word "through", which is a major aspect of deliberate translational deception. "through" is changed to "by" in specific places and translations, it's like a trail of breadcrumbs that is well described in the bible who is responsible for this deliberate deception. The other reasons for not linking part 2 are some other caveats I have with it that I didn't feel like spelling out to provide even more ammo for those who might be interested in debate and arguing about the trivial to ignore or not have to think about the big issues here: Jesus was created by Jehovah who is his God and Father, as both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures show, including the letters of Paul, the book of John and the book of Revelation written by John, unlike the implications from others here, see further below. The videos I shared have some clues regarding deliberate deception regarding this point, a conspiracy if you will. Again, I bolded "might be" to indicate that I'm not implying that that is the case but that I'm thinking out loud regarding possibilities related to my commentary on page 28 (not just the verse quoted above and I made 2 comments with bible quotations that are useful to consider at all times but especially when conversing on ATS).

That’s a lot of “what ifs”…perhaps you should start your own separate thread on this topic, if you truly believe there is a deliberate conspiracy taking place…

Originally posted by whereislogic
Try not to conflate the biblical usages of the words that are used to translate to either "build" or "create" (or perhaps more importantly the term "the Creator" that I talked about rather than just anyone who creates something in our common modern day usage of that verb).

My “build a house” comment was just an example to try to get a point across…A point that you’ve completely overlooked…

The point was that just because God created a being; that doesn’t mean that that being can’t create things himself…

My example was about we/Humans on the surface, but it was really an Analogy/Parallel for the one being brought forth mentioned in Proverbs 8…I thought you would have had at least the sense to realize that…

But like I said in my last reply, the words “worker” and “craftsmen” being attributed to the one brought forth (Jesus/Son) in Proverbs 8, are all in the context of the creation that’s just taken place in the preceding sentences. Which means the one that was brought forth, must have been involved with that creation…

You’re looking too literally at the definitions of each of the key words in the Proverbs 8 verses, instead of reading between the lines as to what the verses are actually indicating overall…

It’s like you can’t see the woods for the trees because you’re too rapped up in literalism…


- JC

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
I disagree, Acts of Paul and Thecla is not flattering to Paul at all.

Here’s your problem.

The book “The Acts of Paul of Thecla” because of it’s abrupt start, is considered to have been part of a larger work… that work being the “The Acts of Paul”…

And as you just saw from my previous post the “Acts of Paul” clearly paints Paul in a good light…while ridiculing followers like Hermogenes…

The thing is though people in the past viewed “The Acts of Paul of Thecla” as romantic literature, they saw Paul teaching chastity and getting thrown in Jail because of it, as being Heroic.

Even Paul’s martyrdom is seen as Heroic. Also the main purpose of the text was to promote chastity among woman. People saw that as following good Christian values and honouring God. The fact that it’s Paul teaching those types things means he’s viewed as the good guy in the story.

You’re just looking at one aspect where Paul makes a bad decision, but overall the text is making Paul look like a hero…

I’m gona have to agree to disagree…


- JC