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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Did Paul Invent Christianity?

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

my double posts were done because of a sow server this morning.




posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


sow server


So you have a probem 'L' key too?



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Yep L the C the A all of these are mess up keys



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio


Paul claims to have secretly met Christ in the desert with the story told only in Acts and in 3 different ways that are irreconcilable and can't add up to all be true.

Are you serious? Your sinister mysterious mind over exaggerates quite a bit of the bible. Saul/Paul did no such thing as you have tried to press upon this event. There were other men with Saul who were in search of Greek speaking Nazarene's. The author who is accounted as Luke wrote several different accounts of this event with slight and insignificant differences in the three accounts. These accounts are noted in the MSS which the translators have available but remember that the translators have no autographs to verify these accounts.

Getting back to your state of bashing Saul/Paul, let me remind you that there was no secrecy in what Saul's mission was. Saul did seek and did openly have permission to seek out and arrest those who he deemed as Greek speaking Nazarene's. There was no secrecy involved whatsoever. You read too much in your own exaggerated mind which leads you into all sorts of conspiracy theories.

Please answer my posts of changing Torah and who is the Creator of Torah.



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: NOTurTypical

My history is not off, yours is.

John's 666 was a numerical reference to Gematrical sum of Nero's name so he was writing in a time when Nero was definitely seen as a beast.

Nice try at nit picking through the vast amount of solid information I provided and attempting to find an error, however miniscule and insignificant even if it was (but it wasn't) true.

The 666 is Nero and since you mentioned it the sum total of Tarsus in Gematria is also 666 so the other beast is Paul and the third one is a reference to the Kingdom of Israel under Solomon as that number is associated with him through his yearly gold tribute and the hexagram. It was Jews expecting a Messiah to restore the glory of Solomon's Kingdom who were the third beast.

John didn't attempt to make Revelation easy to understand and says it requires wisdom to understand so you have to make connections with the clues he gives you and I am quite sure a better interpretation of the identity of the three beasts of Revelation would be extremely difficult and saying that my interpretation is not correct is impossible to prove because it makes perfect sense to anyone who has the specific wisdom of which John says is needed.

I hope you have a good day.


Ecclesiastical history all declares John was exiled to Patmos under the reign of Domitian, and released upon the death of Domitian. Even Wikipedia will tell you this. See chapter 4 of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs".

Foxe's Book of Martyrs ch. 4

Peter and Paul were executed by Nero.


edit on 9 20 2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio


Paul claims to have secretly met Christ in the desert with the story told only in Acts and in 3 different ways that are irreconcilable and can't add up to all be true.

Are you serious? Your sinister mysterious mind over exaggerates quite a bit of the bible. Saul/Paul did no such thing as you have tried to press upon this event. There were other men with Saul who were in search of Greek speaking Nazarene's. The author who is accounted as Luke wrote several different accounts of this event with slight and insignificant differences in the three accounts. These accounts are noted in the MSS which the translators have available but remember that the translators have no autographs to verify these accounts.

Getting back to your state of bashing Saul/Paul, let me remind you that there was no secrecy in what Saul's mission was. Saul did seek and did openly have permission to seek out and arrest those who he deemed as Greek speaking Nazarene's. There was no secrecy involved whatsoever. You read too much in your own exaggerated mind which leads you into all sorts of conspiracy theories.

Please answer my posts of changing Torah and who is the Creator of Torah.


He's actually spot on...and if you would even take the time to investigate why so many people (many of them "Christians", who saw the deception in Paul...which all you would have to do is use google and type in "Paul/false apostle", you would find why so many people have a problem with him). Not only that, but if you'd just take a second and even seriously consider WHY Paul causes so much contention, it would be glaringly clear. BUT, because fundamental Christians can't seem to get their brains around that their "Book" is flawed, they totally reject any thinking outside the box of religion (which is exactly what Christianity is).
Jesus never came to start the religion of "Christianity". He came to set the record straight on WHO the Most High God was and what He was truly like.
The creator of the Torah was NOT the true Most High. Which is exactly WHY Jesus contradicted him....numerous times.
Neither Yahweh, nor Paul...was aligned with the TRUE GOD.





The author who is accounted as Luke wrote several different accounts of this event with slight and insignificant differences in the three accounts.


No...they were all quite different. Go back and read them and then tell us all how they only had insignificant differences. This should be interesting.
edit on 20-9-2016 by Matrixsurvivor because: (no reason given)


I don't know about you...but, I can remember and tell my "conversion" experience the same today, as I did over two decades ago. Nothing would change in my story. So, either Luke screwed it up (by telling three different version..since he IS the author of Acts, according to your bible)...OR, Paul told three different versions and Luke just wrote down. OR, Acts was redacted or messed with and Luke wasn't the true author of that book, which would MEAN that your BOOK isn't infallible.
If Luke screwed it up...then, that would mean ONCE AGAIN that your "book' isn't infallible. Funny how fundamentalists jump through so many poodle hoops to explain the discrepancies. Can't have that "book" being wrong, now can you?
Personally, I think Luke caught on to Paul and was trying to show PAU'S inconsistencies, without coming right out and saying so.
edit on 20-9-2016 by Matrixsurvivor because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2016 by Matrixsurvivor because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   
I can see a minor bit of hostility can be attributed to my summary of the New Testament but what I don't see is anything that even suggests that I am not accurate I see accusations of exaggeration that are not true because Paul does claim SECRET revelations from Christ and claims to have met him in the wilderness fulfillment the prophecy of Matthew 24 of the false prophet.

If that's considered by anyone to be an exaggeration than they aren't familiar with Paul's writings and claims that he had a supernatural encounter in Acts because I didn't axaggerate anything I even left out the part where he pretends to be talking about someone else being caught up into the third(?) heaven (''God knows'') so I was under exaggerating.

But regardless I am psyched for the opportunity to enlighten anyone about the false apostle Paul who by calling himself apostle is appointing himself to a position that doesn't exist, that of 13th apostle and not even Jesus backs him up in Revelation and finally reveals that this is impossible as everything in New Jerusalem is based on 12 and the names of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb are recorded in New Jerusalem but no room is made for a 13th apostle.

So obviously Paul can't be an Apostle because Matthias was one of 2 people left who fit the qualifications and was chosen as the 12th Apostle never relinquishing it to anyone and Paul was obviously guilty of all types of sins to have the arrogance to appoint himself as an apostle.

Nobody but Paul believes Paul is an Apostle in the New Testament. Except for the deceived but nobody is recorded as calling him an Apostle except himself. Luke comes close once.

Revelation reveals that Paul is a false apostle.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio

I will take God's preserved word over yours any day of the week, Gnosisisfaith/LucianusXVII/Malocchio

You need to wake up there are more than 16 Apostles found in the New Testament. Paul never claimed to be the 13th. As a matter of fact he claims their were others who were apostle before him you seemed to miss that.

But then again a little truth mixed with poison is how all cultist do it.
edit on 21-9-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   
my
I have begun reading the surprisingly good Gospel of Barnabas which is in line with the views of Paul as a false prophet and the fact that Barnabas is known to have sided with the Petrine faction in the book of Acts and the acts of Barnabas that record Paul treating John Mark, Barnabas friend and disciple, like a piece of garbage.

It's liked by Muslims because it doesn't agrees with their views and although it is said that the oldest copy is AD 1000 or so it seems very likely that it's a genuine tradition going back much further.

And it's good.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

I will take God's preserved word over yours any day of the week, Gnosisisfaith/LucianusXVII/Malocchio

You need to wake up there are more than 16 Apostles found in the New Testament. Paul never claimed to be the 13th. As a matter of fact he claims their were others who were apostle before him you seemed to miss that.

But then again a little truth mixed with poison is how all cultist do it.


There are more than 16 named?? WHO named them??? Was it Jesus? No. How many did Jesus pick? TWELVE. The rest were all side kicks of Paul or converts of his.
It was PAUL who established the offices (pastor, teacher, apostle, etc.). Jesus did no such thing. Jesus was the ONLY teacher and claimed it as such. He also told His followers to call NO MAN your father (which Paul conveniently placed himself as to the Corinthians).
Paul didn't need to CLAIM the number 13. He just was by his own self proclamation of being the apostle to the gentiles....which was originally given to Peter. Then, it was given to all of the true 12 (once Matthias was chosen to replace Judas).
You are right about this though....a little truth mixed with poison (or shall we say, "leaven") IS what causes cults and corruption. Christianity would be the biggest one on the planet. Wasn't it Jesus who WARNED to beware the "leaven of the Pharisee's"?? And Paul WAS a Pharisee. Paul's leaven has polluted, corrupted and hijacked the true message of the Son of Man.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor


The creator of the Torah was NOT the true Most High. Which is exactly WHY Jesus contradicted him....numerous times. Neither Yahweh, nor Paul...was aligned with the TRUE GOD.

I believe last month we had gone over this and your final word was that that this Yahweh was evil. I never received an answer from you as to who Yahweh is in your understanding. Till we can get on the same page I have no idea who and what you are talking about.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Jesus picked 12 Disciples.

How many disciples were there and who picked the rest?

the 4 gospels writers called them disciples and Apostles not Jesus.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio


Paul claims to have secretly met Christ in the desert with the story told only in Acts and in 3 different ways that are irreconcilable and can't add up to all be true.

Are you serious? Your sinister mysterious mind over exaggerates quite a bit of the bible. Saul/Paul did no such thing as you have tried to press upon this event.


You are not trying to tell me that the Damascus road trip isn't recorded in Acts by Luke, his travelling companion, or that it is not told three times by Paul in said book, are you?

That's not a sinister exaggeration or the workings of my mind it's what it says in the book of Acts and by Paul. I brought it up because it matches the prophecy of Matthew 24.

Also because of the three irreconcilable differences in the three tellings of the story which led me to theorize Luke was leaving behind a clue. That and his recording of Peter's speach where he says God appointed him (Peter) as the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul's claim that he is the sole Apostle to the Gentiles and to being an Apostle period are not credible and Luke doesn't help to enforce the idea that he is at all believable once you read his epistles and all the hostility towards the ''circumcision faction'' of the ''apostles of men'' ''who seemed to be pillars'' and ''added nothing to me'' he (Paul) says also that he ''withstood Peter to his face'' ''even Barnabas was carried away by his hypocrisy'' and then curses anyone who teaches or follows another gospel than ''his gospel'' that he learned by revelation from ''no man.''

Calling himself least of apostles was a bad attempt to appear humble and a slick way of seeming to be an actual apostle. He also says he labored more than anyone and spends a great deal of time bragging about his success and berating people who have decided to go with the real Apostles and have ''turned from'' him.



There were other men with Saul who were in search of Greek speaking Nazarene's. The author who is accounted as Luke wrote several different accounts of this event with slight and insignificant differences in the three accounts. These accounts are noted in the MSS which the translators have available but remember that the translators have no autographs to verify these accounts.

Getting back to your state of bashing Saul/Paul, let me remind you that there was no secrecy in what Saul's mission was. Saul did seek and did openly have permission to seek out and arrest those who he deemed as Greek speaking Nazarene's. There was no secrecy involved whatsoever. You read too much in your own exaggerated mind which leads you into all sorts of conspiracy theories.

Please answer my posts of changing Torah and who is the Creator of Torah.


Who changed the Torah?

Torah is the five books formerly attributed to Moses but now believed to have multiple sources and authors so absolutely nobody knows who ''Created'' the Torah unless you want to be cheesy and attribute it to Yahweh himself.

I think you are rude, insulting my state of mind and calling me sinister. It's a personal attack stemming from my response to the events in the New Testament and accurate report of events recorded that you can't find flaw with so you need to attempt and make me look flawed. I am comfortable with the accuracy of my recall of events and interpretation of the New Testament, anyone can interpret the meaning of the events however they want but I have accurately recalled the events and your quite wrong about the ''insignificance" of the differences in the three reports of the Damascus road trip, an event which you just claimed Paul never said happened and then talk about as if they are believable and did happen so I don't know what to make of that. Was that not what you called me sinister for exaggerating, that secret desert visit from ''Jesus'' that is entirely unbelievable after reading Acts and the epistles of Paul and comparing them with the teachings of Jesus and the other Apostles it's a farce you say that's not secretly meeting Jesus in the wilderness. Matthew 24.
edit on 21-9-2016 by Malocchio because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: NOTurTypical

My history is not off, yours is.

John's 666 was a numerical reference to Gematrical sum of Nero's name so he was writing in a time when Nero was definitely seen as a beast.

Nice try at nit picking through the vast amount of solid information I provided and attempting to find an error, however miniscule and insignificant even if it was (but it wasn't) true.

The 666 is Nero and since you mentioned it the sum total of Tarsus in Gematria is also 666 so the other beast is Paul and the third one is a reference to the Kingdom of Israel under Solomon as that number is associated with him through his yearly gold tribute and the hexagram. It was Jews expecting a Messiah to restore the glory of Solomon's Kingdom who were the third beast.

John didn't attempt to make Revelation easy to understand and says it requires wisdom to understand so you have to make connections with the clues he gives you and I am quite sure a better interpretation of the identity of the three beasts of Revelation would be extremely difficult and saying that my interpretation is not correct is impossible to prove because it makes perfect sense to anyone who has the specific wisdom of which John says is needed.

I hope you have a good day.


Ecclesiastical history all declares John was exiled to Patmos under the reign of Domitian, and released upon the death of Domitian. Even Wikipedia will tell you this. See chapter 4 of "Foxe's Book of Martyrs".

Foxe's Book of Martyrs ch. 4

Peter and Paul were executed by Nero.



Does anyone take ecclesiastical history serious anymore? Not even the Catholic Church will say that the stories about Paul and Peter's deaths are true and says they are likely legend.

I can tell you off the top of my head tha the historian Eusebius wrote that in a sentence in his Church History and he gets it from the Acts of Paul and Peter which is the least believable book of the Apocrypha that has a subservient to Peter, Paul, in front of Nero watching Peter and Simon Magus duel in magic.

Needless to say Eusebius is not considered to be a reliable historian and your obsession over the issue is odd. As far as John and Revelation go if he is writing about Nero and we know that he was it's obvious when the letter was written and not worth debate as I really don't care if it was written in 60 AD or 100AD or 400AD the message is the same.

Whoever's book of martyrs doesn't quite get the job done in a debate when Eusebius himself is doubted on the matter of Peter and Paul's death by Nero and the Catholic Church regards the stories as legendary today. Good story, bad history.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn



Originally posted by ChesterJohn
Jesus picked 12 Disciples.

How many disciples were there and who picked the rest?

the 4 gospels writers called them disciples and Apostles not Jesus.



You do realize that two out of the four supposed Gospel writers, never even met Jesus, and were not part of the 12 disciples…i.e. Mark and Luke…

But aside from that fact, the 4 canonical Gospels were anonymous works. The 4 Gospels that we know today as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, didn’t even have those name inscriptions attached to them originally. Those names were only added much later…

The crazy part is that Marks Gospels is the template for the other 3…as the same story line and same structure is found in the other 3 accounts etc…

If each of the 4 Gospels was a different persons account, then the odds of them putting it together in roughly the same structure would have been pretty low…IMO…and yet that’s exactly what has happened!!!

Marks Gospel is thought by scholars to be an account by Peter, recorded by Mark…but if that’s the case then why not just call it Peters account, because surely if you are writing someone else’s account then you (Mark) would put the right persons name to it…

But anyway that’s all academic, because the 4 canonical Gospels were all written anonymously and Mark and Luke were not part of Jesus twelve disciples.


- JC

edit on 21-9-2016 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Acts 9:3-8

Now as he was going along approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" He asked, "Who are you, Lord?" the reply came, " I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do. The men traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one.

He is blinded for three days.

22:6-11" While I was on my way and approaching Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven shone about me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' I answered, who are you, Lord?' Then he said to me, I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.' Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.


Luke says the men heard the voice but Paul tells it as though ONLY he heard it. Some differences are irreconcilable and hearing the voice in one version but not the other is positively irreconcilable, only one version can be true and one must be incorrect.

But who is telling the truth???

26: 12-19

" With this in mind [Killing Nazarenes 26: 9-11], I was traveling to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, when at midday along the road, your Excellency, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It hurts to kick against the goads.' I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' the Lord answered 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But get up and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you.


Remember Jesus warned in Matthew 24 to NOT believe people who claim secret encounters with him to the Apostles who are not present at this hearing allowing Paul to claim that Jesus appointed him to preach to the Gentiles.

Luke records that God appointed Peter for that position and Paul claims to have rebuked Peter for hypocrisy but Barnabas sided with Peter. Paul is a trouble maker and an obvious liar. His companions aren't recorded by name here and Paul's testimony is uncorroborated by Luke who records a different version of events than Paul's second account and the third account by Paul sounds heavily embellished more so than the first two accounts that are all recorded by Luke.

Essentially Luke is letting it be known that Paul is covetous of Peter's appointment by Christ and claims that Christ appeared to him and will appear again and that he assigned him the position of ''apostle to the Gentiles.''

Only problem is it doesn't make sense. Peter is the Chief Apostle to the Nations or Gentiles and Christ appears to a Sadducee sanctioned Pharisee mercenary with liscence to kill Disciples of Jesus and gives him the same job but doesn't appear to any other Apostles or disciples to confirm it. He schmoozes his way into the movement and then declares himself the Apostle of Christ and claims to have revelations that nobody else is privy to about another Gospel, his Gospel that he learned not from the Apostles but Christ himself, secretly and in private. He places his teachings above the teachings of Christ as the only means of salvation and curses anyone who teaches or believed another (Christs) Gospel taught by the ''Circumcision faction.'' Who were bound to ''the whole law'' which Paul calls a curse.

I think Paul had issues and has led many astray with his gospel of graces with its original sin and faith only justification that practically calls the Torah and good works an abomination, all that matters to Paul is that you believe Paul and if you don't you are cursed.

Go with Christ. Faith without works is dead.


edit on 21-9-2016 by Malocchio because: error

edit on 21-9-2016 by Malocchio because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

There are a great deal of Apocryphal Petrine books such as the Gospel of Peter, Teachings of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter and the so called Clementina that is the story of the theological debates of Peter and Clement with Simon Magus and others. It's the most sofisticated effort to explain everything from the Old Testament to the theology of the True Prophet or Christ. It's far superior to Pauline theology and just as old although like the New Testament all the oldest copies are 3-4 century but the fact that it exists means you can use it as a theological guide and Paul is not featured.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Quoting the New World Encyclopedia on James the Just:

Was James Christianity more concerned with establishing God's Kingdom on Earth?

There has been much discussion about the actual relationship between James and Jesus, as well as about whether James and his Jerusalem Church represented a different strand of Christianity from what emerged under the influence of st Paul. Possibly James' Christianity was more concerned with transforming this world than it was with human fate after death. Possibly, had James-type Christianity survived, relations between Christians, Jews and Muslims may have been less hostile, if, as some argue, the cross was not nearly as central to Jewish Christianity as it was in the later teaching of the Church, and in the writings of st Paul.


another quote:

It is James who insists Paul ritually cleanse himself at Herod's Temple to prove his faith and deny rumors of teaching rebellion against the Torah (Acts).
James New World Encyclopedia

So it's a matter of scholarship that a schism was evident in early Christianity between the Jewish Jerusalem and Asia faction and the Greek Pauline Christianity that was the eventual winner being more suitable for pagan Greeks and Romans and that anyone who reads the Bible can see this clearly.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Malocchio


TextI have begun reading the surprisingly good Gospel of Barnabas which is in line with the views of Paul as a false prophet and the fact that Barnabas is known to have sided with the Petrine faction in the book of Acts and the acts of Barnabas that record Paul treating John Mark, Barnabas friend and disciple, like a piece of garbage. It's liked by Muslims because it doesn't agrees with their views and although it is said that the oldest copy is AD 1000 or so it seems very likely that it's a genuine tradition going back much further.

In my previous posts I have discussed this very subject with "enterthestage" on 9/25/16 and it may help you understand some of your cockeyed interpretations.

Quote
When the Holy Spirit appoints Barnabas and Saul to be missionaries from Antioch in Acts 13:2, Barnabas and Saul decide to take John Mark along as an assistant (Acts 13:5). But something happened after the team left Cyprus and headed on into Pamphylia. It is very serious, but Luke only mentions it in one sentence in Acts 13:13, "Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem."
Luke is very reserved here. He passes no judgment on John. We wait to see what will come of this.

Where Acts 15:36 Picks Up
Two or three years later, after the first missionary journey is over, and after the Jerusalem council has settled the issue of Gentile circumcision, and after Paul and Barnabas are back in Antioch teaching and preaching, Paul is convinced that the time is right for a return to that first missionary field to strengthen the saints. This is where Acts 15:36 picks up . . .
And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Come, let us return, and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.
Unquote
Source -- www.desiringgod.org...

Barnabas and John Mark were cousins and this was a matter of nepotism and not the fault of Paul as you so misaligned. John Mark was not qualified for this particular event and it was Barnabas who kicked against the Holy Spirit and not Paul. Learn to tell the truth before you hail misinformation.
________________________________________________________________

After Barnabas parted fellowship with Paul over his cousin's failed attempt at evangelizing it seems that he did join Cephas (Peter) who was his brother in law. The reason for this move is suspected as anger on Barnabas' behalf and not Paul. Why?

The reason why is suspected by NT scholars as being that Peter's wife (Mary) and Peter were the parents of John Mark. To be more clear it is believed by some scholars that John Mark was Peter's son and that it was nepotisim at its very core.

John Mark was very immature either mentally or physically for evangelizing the heathens. It was a very hard and dangerous undertaking at this time and under those conditions. Mark was the cousin of Barnabas who in turn was the brother in law of Cephus (Peter). As the Apostles were teamed together by two men to a team it did not include John Mark. The teams were selected by drawing lots.

Once again here are the teams in 48 CE.

Thomas and Bartholomew were allotted to the care of
the east.

Simon and Matthew to the south.

Philip and Thaddaeus to the north.

Matthew and James to the centre of the world (" Medium
mundi").

John and Andrew to the provinces of the Mediterranean,

Peter and Paul to the kingdoms of the West.

As you can see, Peter's son [John Mark] is not mentioned to team with the others. He was not qualified for this tour at this time. Now during this era it was Paul who invited Barnabas to tour a certain area. It was that Barnabas then wanted John Mark to go with them on this one particular tour. This was the reason that John Mark was then adopted by Paul to team with Paul and Barnabas.

It is greatly suspected that the tour was too much for Peter’s son, John Mark, and John Mark then returned to Jerusalem.
It was but three years later that Paul asked Barnabas to re tour their first tour but rejected taking John Mark along. Here is where John Mark’s cousin Barnabas had a tizzy with Paul. It was nepotism at the very best. Paul said no and Barnabas said yes and Barnabas pouted and joined his brother in law Peter who then took his son, John Mark, under his wing.

Now when you read this story you should realize that Barnabas' tizzy with Paul was not connected with the teams of two by two where Peter and Paul were a team. The reason I show that John Mark was not in the lots of teams is to only show that John Mark was not qualified for evangelizing. I suspect that he was not strong enough for the rugged hardship required and I believe that is the reason he quit his post with Paul. Regardless, it was not Paul who was angry but the Cephus clan that was angry.

It was a family squabble which Paul then tried to heal with little results. And it was not the only squabble that Paul had with Peter. Peter was pretty double minded even during the trial and death of Jesus and that was a good five years before Paul’s conversion. Peter was known for unruliness long before he and his brother in law Barnabas joined the Nazarene James.

No one is perfect and most certainly this story shows that very well but it is not as you have inferred. You have led people astray from the entire truth of the matter. The entire affair was the fault of a young son who quit his post and his cousin [Barnabas] and his daddy [Peter] didn’t want to address his fault. It was pure nepotisim and nothing more. Yes Barnabas did get mad and go to his brother in law and all three bashed Paul because they did not get their way but that did not deter Paul one bit.

By the way, had you noted that Matthias was not among those went out and yet Paul was? Humm -------------------



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede



Maybe instead of calling me sinister you could work on your scholarship because insulting me for telling the truth is not going to make you a better person or bring you closer to Christ.

You have insulted me several times and used amateur terms like ''Paul basher'' to describe my honest analysis of the contents of the New Testament.

I don't consider that a very Christ-like act. I am defending the doctrine of the Messiah and his teachings and exposing the historical enemy of the Nazarenes who ended up the prominent theologian of a movement that used the death of Christ as a way to heaven based on Paul's insane ideas.

The Jewish Nazarenes were more concerned with peace on earth and making the world the Kingdom of God as it is in Heaven and faith was the beginning of the Way not the Way itself.

Thomas Jefferson was astute, he said:


"The first person to corrupt the teachings of Jesus was Paul..."




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join