It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 83
<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 10:11 PM
Double post

edit on 13-12-2016 by dffrntkndfnml because: Double post

posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 11:42 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

the men which were with him did hear the voice speaking to Paul, but did not see the person who was speaking. So there were witnesses. And the other witness is that of God via inspiration. So they and the word are two witnesses, plus Jesus and the Holy Ghost also so their are at least five witnesses for Paul and none in context that prove your view.

Except the "witnesses" were never there to collaborate Paul's story. What happened to them? Besides, why are there three different versions of Paul's conversion story? It would be interesting to hear how you explain that.

posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 11:50 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Sometimes love is just stating the truth.

So, it's basically your truth according to what you believe...verses our truth according to what we believe.
I'm curious can you prove what you believe is more truthful or the truth, compared to us believing Paul is a false apostle?
Can you prove it? Using just the Bible? Besides, you keep saying that the verses need to be kept in their "context". So, how about you show everyone reading this thread how we aren't using things in "context" as you are.
It shouldn't be too difficult. Especially if you are right and we are wrong. Just show us how we are wrong.
(instead of saying the same rhetoric, again and again).

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 03:25 AM

originally posted by: dffrntkndfnml
a reply to: SethTsaddik

Some things to think about your take on Romans 7:7;

I feel Paul brought this up in the sense that for every decision there are consequences.Pain or love are two great teachers in life.Free will permits one to chose, and learn for themselves.

I think my explanation was on the money, the law caused covetousness is what he said, he never would have coveted if the commandment didn't say not to.

I find your ''feeling" of what "sense" Paul meant it in, is feeling not based on the spirit of the text, what it literally says, and is just a feeling, not a good counter argument for what I was talking.

Your perspective on covetousness may change.

My perspective on covetousness is not the issue and never was, it's Paul's perspective in the book of Romans I was talking about.

Wanting something you don't have is most natural,

Yes, and that means, just like I said, that covetousness preceded the law and didn't cause it. Paul said the law revived sin, caused him to covet, the commandment not to covet caused covetousness. The opposite of it being natural, as nature, humans, came before laws.

As did covetousness come before commandments or laws not to covet.

Paul obviously is no Prophet, and an idiot.

wanting to have something of anothers is where it crosses the line.It's fine to want something, but being to tempted to take somebody else possession can become unhealthy.I think it would be good to reflect on the difference between needs and wants as well, contrasting needs like food, clothing or shelter with wants doesn't make for a fair comparison.Often the needy show greater appreciation for the little graces life has to offer,

All well and good, your understanding of covetousness is practical I suppose.

But it is not Paul's in Romans, and Paul's misunderstanding of the the sequence of the appearance of covetousness and the law.

According to him the law, which is younger than human nature, causes covetousness, which we both know is not true.

This is no prophet, apostle of the Messiah or even a disciple. This is an antichrist, and false prophet, a beast (Saul/Paul).

Romans 7;9-13;

Do you think his persecution of the early church and what is mentioned about Stephen being stoned for his testimony could have anything to do with this?

Not at all. I was specifically talking about something having nothing to do with Acts, Stephen, or Paul's past. His words that I quoted don't say anything that would lead me to believe what you are suggesting is the case in Acts. I have no reason to think what you are suggesting. And I see no logical reason to conclude it.

He could very easily be reflecting on the way his zeal blinded him, in the earlier part of his life.Perhaps when he saw the light, a part of him realized the damage he was doing to himself the whole time he persecuted others?A part of us tends to die, when we realize our own reflection in others eyes...

"Very easily" is quite the liberal statement. A stretch or completely inaccurate are more and most likely, I honestly don't think there is a possibility that was what he was talking about, and don't think be was thinking about that either.

He is talking about the law and the commandment not to covet. Persecution is not coveting, it's disagreeing and actively seeking to destroy, sometimes physically.

Coveting is wanting. The commandment is pretty much about coveting other people's good's and other people's spouses.

The commandment deceives him, he is blaming the commandment for reviving sin, covetousness, not to mention 9:13 is such a self contradiction,


Did what is good, then, bring death to me?----

What he said brought him death was sin, revived by the commandment, the commandment that is Holy and just and good.

The commandment, which is "holy, just and good" "revived sin" and therefore, according to his own words in 9:7-13, this revived sin because of the deception of the commandment causes death in him.

Did Paul say good brought him death? Yes, through the commandment reviving sin . As well as causing his sin of covetousness specifically.
edit on 14-12-2016 by SethTsaddik because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 03:53 AM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

No, he admitted to falsehoods, claimed those falsehoods caused God's glory to abound, and admitted to being condemned, still, as a sinner.

I don't know if you think think simply saying I don't understand context it might it look true, but it won't, and you are wrong. The accusations were not false, he confessed , and was TRYING to justify it by saying his falsehood caused God's glory to abound.

So. I repeat, and actually now conclude that you don't understand what context is and read through a lens of preconceived notions.

Everything you say includes the word context, but it does not, like you seem to think, counter the fact that I am not out of context.

And I repeat, he was not denying false allegations but admitting to and trying to justify them by invoking God.
edit on 14-12-2016 by SethTsaddik because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:47 AM
a reply to: SethTsaddik

a sixth grader could read it and know by the context of not just the section but the whole chapter and the whole book.

In Act 20 Paul comes back through Ephesus, meets twelve disciples of John who never heard of the holy Ghost, lays hands n them they spoke in tongues. He was obviously later in his ministry to the gentiles allowed to preach in Ephesus. He ends up staying over two years in Ephesus teaching from the school of Tyranius.

No you are somehow holding to one item where he is forbidden to go but later allowed to go. Paul was not lying it was his accusers who were lying and he asks how is it that God be glorified through my lie and if that be true that all glory to God for all who were added to Christ.

You are definitely putting a slant on the scriptures concerning Paul a real biased slant.

Are you anti-Semite or a racist?

because that is what it looks like.

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:03 AM
a reply to: SethTsaddik

Reflecting on my opinion, Paul practiced doing his best to pass forward his message to other believers.It may be a little niave not to look deeper into what he had to say.

Stephen payed with his life for his testimony, given Paul's authority, he could have stopped what happened that day.Even in his death Stephen, he asked that it not be held against the ones who killed him.In their ignorance, they couldn't see where Stephen was coming from.

I feel this event was a turning point in Paul's life, and was the beginning of him looking at life from a different perspective...

It goes back to what I was trying to say about wants and needs.Needs are generally considered the essentials of what is healthy for us, while wants can often bring about unintended consequences.Laws generally focus on behaviour, as that is where everyone meets on the same page.

Given what I know of Paul, and assuming a zealous religious background, I feel Paul may have been alluding to judgment, and the separation from God that can come from exercising that freedom...

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 09:49 AM
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

The verses speak for them selves you either accpet it or reject it in the context of the whole New Testament, Jesus the one you claim to follow but really do not made the teaching very clear about blaspheming against the Holy Ghost.. The Holy Ghoast sent out Paul, sealed his ministry with signs and wonders, led him bank into Ephesus and warned him about not going back to Jerusalem (which he chose to ignore and it cost him dearly. For he did ot hav a prosperous jurney to rom but a rough and costly one).

So to claim Paul was not sent y the Holy Ghost is a liar, and was not guided and approved by the Holy Ghost is to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost plain and simple. Failure to see that then you are truly blind t the word of God. Which I have suspected as such from the beginning.

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 04:09 PM
More on Paul and Romans:

Romans 7:15-20

I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want but I do the very thing I hate.16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.----

Stopping for a moment it should be noticed that Paul must be saying that the law is good, because he does what he does not want, does what he hates. He is inconsistent if he says the law is good, and he agrees it is if and because he does what he doesn't want to do.

Yet he just blamed the law not to covet for creating the sin of coveting and the blamed the commandment for ressurecting sin. And he calls the law and commandment holy and just and good for deceiving him and "killing" him.

This is a truly mad man.

9:17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it [what he hates], but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, my flesh.-----

Now Paul refuses to take the blame for sinning or doing ''what he hates" and blames sin itself, and admits he has nothing good in him. Anyone who confesses to not being a good person and blames ''sin" for it and not their self, is to blame as is God's creation the flesh.

I'm other words Paul can't overcome his evil desires but it's not his fault, it's sin's fault.

"It is no longer I that do it."

This reminds me of ''All things are lawful to me." Another famous Paul quote showing delusions of grandeur.

Paul rejects his responsibility for sin and blames sin itself, because he can't stop. Even Prophets have sinned, Moses for instance, but they don't blame sin for their actions because they have free will and know better. All those people who died for violating the law in the Tanakh were killed because they CHOSE to sin, sin didn't choose them. Unless Paul is demon possessed, a distinct possibility.


For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.----

Besides again saying it is not him but sin that makes him sin, he is denying that the evil he does is not done by him but by sin that dwells within him.

The only way this could be true is in the case of demon possession, otherwise, it is Paul that does the evil he "does not want" to do.

If he doesn't want to do evil, why is he doing it?

People do evil because they choose to, and choose to do evil because they want to. Not because sin makes them. They may or may not regret it, but sin is not responsible for sin.

Choosing to do wrong/sin makes the chooser responsible for sin, not the sin itself.

Romans 9:1

I am speaking the truth in Christ--- I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit.

Anyone who remembers Christ's decree against swearing by heaven or earth or anything at all. Anyone who swears by anything, nevermind the Spirit, is:

"of the evil one."

Paul is of the Evil One.

Romans 9:33

" See, I am laying a stone in Zion that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.''

Now, I don't know what section Paul is quoting from the OT, but it sounds like what Jesus says about Balaam in Revelation, how both he and someone in the era of Jesus were accused of teaching that eating meat sacrificed to idols is just fine (and fornication) to eat, that this was a ''stumbling block" in front of Israel.

Paul is the one taught idol sacrificed to meat was OK to eat, even calling the prohibition for ''weak brothers" though it came from the Holy Spirit, the prohibition against eating meat sacrificed to idols.

The amazing thing is that Paul boasts that Jews/Israel stumbled over the ''stumbling stone" in 9:32 for their basing righteousness on works instead of faith.

And that the goyim who did not try to be righteous through good works, and did through faith, succeeded, that Israel failed.

Paul is the true ''stumbling block" for teaching against the decree of the Spirit, and creating a religion where it's a sin to be a Nazarene like Jesus, eventually a heresy.

Where good deeds are useless and a thought that you believe something is a greater virtue than curing cancer, ending war or negotiating a successful world peace.

"A bad tree does not bear good fruit."

Paul is a bad tree, the fruits are the proof.

Orthodox Catholic Church.

Need I say more?

edit on 14-12-2016 by SethTsaddik because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 04:16 PM
a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

We aren't even talking about the same thing, I'm talking about Romans.

Stephen was murdered with Paul's consent in Acts.

He never brings it up, so it has nothing to do with what I am talking about. He never mentions Stephen, just that he persecuted, murdered and imprisoned many, and he says he was blameless for doing it.

He was not even sorry about it, or guilty, but feels he was justified.

I would have to say you a bit off on your entire premise.

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 04:20 PM

originally posted by: SethTsaddik
I just got the bad news that my package of three books, 40$, was stolen off my porch. My mailman knows where to hide them so don't see how it could happen but my neighbor saw them and didn't bring them in the hallway, though he cared enough to ask if I got them I guess he didn't care enough to take two seconds and bring them in the hallway. It's ultimately my fault... and I just reordered but still.

But I'm going to take it out on Paul, and so Chester John can't employ his answer for everything, "Out of context" I will be using only Romans, though I might mention another book if warranted and if I offer an opinion I will label it as such, which I think I am pretty consistent with doing, but I will try to just explain it without my opinion.

Like the Christians do, literally.

Romans 3:7

But if through my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds, why am I still being condemned as a sinner.?

Two facts can be ascertained with certainty, Paul is admitting to lying in a way he thinks has an effect on God's truthfulness, his lies make God's truthfulness abound.

He was being condemned as a sinner for it and thinks he is being treated unfairly, though he was lying.

Romans 7:7

What should we say? That the law is a sin? By no means! Although if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I wouldn't know what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet.". Despite the fact that wanting something you don't have is natural and occurs in places it isn't illegal. It's an emotion, not something caused by learning the word for it.

Careful to begin with the statement that the law is not a sin Paul shifts and says it just causes sin. That covetousness is a result of the law against it, which makes it the cause.

If a monkey is starving and sees another monkey eating he will covet, even fight for and steal it, because it's an instinct.

Likewise an illiterate and uneducated person who has never heard a single law in his life, lives in the jungle and never goes into the city will covet something at some point in his life, even in small villages people covet more than they have, it is human nature and the cause of the law, not the other way around. You can't make a law about covetousness if covetousness doesn't exist. The concept has to develop before a law is made banning it. Covet existed as a word before Moses.

7;9 -13

I once was alive,apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

Paul is clearly saying that "the commandment", whatever one he means that promised him life, was the conduit for sin seizing an opportunity IN the commandment, deceived him.

I wonder how a commandment from God could lead one to sin, since God makes the commandmens following them is not sin, can't possibly be or lead to sin.

He says sin was revived, as if it had died, and the coming of this commandment was what revived sin and this commandment promised him life, but gave him death.

After all this talk of the commandment as being the cause of sin, blaming the law for the sin, he has the nizzies to say:

So the law is holy, the commandment is just and good.

Which makes, following Paul's twisted pseudo logic, reviving sin just and good. Because the commandment does that, and it deceives, leads to a metaphorical death, and without it or law there is no sin.

Yet it is just and holy. I can't believe this is what Christianity calls Scripture, and they historically mocked every competing ideology, theology or philosophy. Hypocrisy is a Pauline virtue.

I am going to take a break but am not finished.

My previous comment regarding Romans was a continuation of this, I just want the info on one page because it was supposed to be one message.

Also good news. Whoever stole my package must have realized it wasn't valuable and put it back, opened, but there.

Very happy about that.

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:37 PM
a reply to: SethTsaddik

The verses are talking about what all men go through struggling not to sin that wants to rule ones life.

Ever try to quit something but every time you try you failed and did that which you were not wanting to do?

Like the man who says he quit smoking a thousand times. It is a fact that when one tries to do something they sometimes end up not doing what they set out to do.

That is what Paul is relating here.

Romans 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Basically he is saying that the law brings the knowledge of sin.

Just take the word of God simply as it says, no need to try and bend it to prove some odd opinion you have.

He is not mad, and in saying so you are blaspheming against the Holy Ghost for which there is no forgiveness.

Also, Paul did not create the orthodox catholic church. He only helped to established the church, he expounded the teachings of Christ for today.

Your interpretation of Romans 7:15-20 is out and out crazy. You seem to be the mad man here.

edit on 14-12-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 08:45 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The verses speak for them selves you either accpet it or reject it in the context of the whole New Testament, Jesus the one you claim to follow but really do not made the teaching very clear about blaspheming against the Holy Ghost.. The Holy Ghoast sent out Paul, sealed his ministry with signs and wonders,

The "Holy Ghost" did not send out Paul. Paul claimed to have been visited by a "voice" that was Jesus.
Jesus, on the other hand... was speaking only what the FATHER told Him to speak and the miracles He did were not of His own power, but the power of the FATHER.
There's a huge difference there.
Besides that....signs and wonders do not automatically make someone legit. Or, have you not read in Deuteronomy 18 or even the book of Revelation, that the "anti-Christ" and even any other "imposters" are quite able to perform "signs and wonders"? That doesn't make them true. It just means they are able to trick people. Even the "anti-Christ" will be able to call fire down from heaven...(hey! I know another deity that did that!! his supposed battle with "Baal". You know, when Elijah called fire down from heaven?!)

Do you remember what Jesus told His disciples when they wanted to know if they should call "fire down from heaven"?

" As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and said, "you do not know what spirit you are of!" For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to SAVE THEM", and they went to another village. "
(that's in Luke chp. 9, in case you want to look it up).

Well, how do you explain that Yahweh wanted to DESTROY constantly?? While Jesus, (who represented HIS FATHER AND WAS THE PERFECT REPRESENTATION OF HIM)....would say the TOTAL opposite of Yahweh?? Even so much to say it was WRONG to call fire down from Heaven to destroy people??

Hmmm....another conundrum?

Guess I'm still blaspheming the Holy Ghost....cause I'd rather listen to Jesus than Paul.
edit on 14-12-2016 by Matrixsurvivor because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 08:57 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ever try to quit something but every time you try you failed and did that which you were not wanting to do?

There are plenty of people who can quit doing something, they set their mind to...OR, START doing something, they set their mind to.

Basically he is saying that the law brings the knowledge of sin.

NO....basically Paul blames the law for all his ineptness. The guy was really good at actually pointing the finger BACK at GOD for his own failures (or...the law, if you want to get nit picky). And a "round and round" he goes...trying to excuse himself (by blaming it on some phantom "sin nature" that Jesus NEVER, EVER, taught. As a matter of fact, Jesus told many who he healed, forgave, or interacted STOP SINNING UNLESS SOMETHING WORSE HAPPENS TO YOU.
That was BEFORE He was "crucified for the sins of the world"....that was BEFORE "His blood was shed"....and that was BEFORE, (according to Paul), Jesus "set us free from the law".

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 10:32 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

So to claim Paul was not sent y the Holy Ghost is a liar, and was not guided and approved by the Holy Ghost is to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost plain and simple. Failure to see that then you are truly blind t the word of God. Which I have suspected as such from the beginning.

So, one is a "liar" and "blaspheming the "Holy Ghost", if they reject Paul, yet don't reject Jesus? Or, is it one is a blasphemer if they don't believe every single word in the Bible is "inerrant, infallible, and HOLY"?
Basically, you are saying that belief in Jesus and His words isn't enough. You also have to believe Paul's words.

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 08:37 AM
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Think of this the Holy Ghost is the primary instrument of inspiration of the words of God, and of their preservation. to deny that God did not keep his promise in Psalm 12:6-7 is to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

Psalm 12:-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

And he was the primary instrument of the calling of Paul and his ministry along with Jesus Christ (according to John in 1 John5:7 they are one). So to reject Jesus in rejecting his calling of Paul in Acts 9 can be forgiven for any sin against him can be forgiven, but that which is against the Holy Ghost (remember they are one) will not be forgiven.

So now the question bears witness which gospel were you saved under the Gospel to the circumcision (the gospel of the kingdom) or the Gospel to the uncircumcised (the gospel of the grace of God to which Paul)?

remember both are by faith but what follows that faith tells which gospel you were saved under.

failure to rightly divide is what has led you two into error and failure to have the Holy Ghost in you is the other part of why you read it wrong and create a lie in your hearts.
edit on 15-12-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 08:55 AM
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Oh My goodness you and Seth better g back to school an learn to read. He is not blaming the law he is blaming sin that the law made manifest which means sin was I him and us by nature.

It is a sign you do not have the Holy Ghost in you because you read the scriptures and cannot understand the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus and all that it entails in living a holy Life, which is not by works but by the grace f God through faith just s you salvation must be.

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 08:57 AM
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I thought you read your bible everyday if so you would know The Holy Ghost did send out Paul

Acts 13:2-4 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.
Sure does look like the Holy Ghost sent them out. Sorry but you are wrong.

edit on 15-12-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 04:17 PM
a reply to: Akragon

Listen to how the man speaks about helping only Jews, when western people need more help to understand they have been lied to. This man is a prideful man, and very stubborn. The reason why he does not believe Christ is the Messiah is because he does not believe in the concepts of his teachings. But I know that they are the real thing.

Also, this man probably has no idea how to even find the real teachings of Christ. His people along with western forefathers have been discrediting and dishonoring Christ for ages on both sides. They all hated Christ, even Paul.

Violent stubborn prideful men hate men of peace and humility, why is this so hard for people to get?

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 05:33 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

You are free to make up false interpretations, but you can't refute mine, as I stuck to the literal.

He is talking about himself and only himself, not all men and what they go through. He uses the word, I, not we, and means I, not all men.

How you came up with that interpretation I can't say, but it's very lazy.

Paul is ''Of the evil one."

top topics

<< 80  81  82    84  85  86 >>

log in