Jesus vs Saul-- sinful or sinless?

While Jesus says “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8). The story alludes to the old acknowledgement that in all essence all humans are sinners, needless to say, nobody threw any stones, Jesus included, admitting that he was indeed a sinner as well, the guy was wise. Saul on his hand however, proclaims his panoramic innocence and one of the last things he's been recorded to say was that “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.” (Acts 25)

==> So who is right? Jesus or Saul?

Are we all sinners, as Jesus demonstrates-- or is there a certain Pharisee once among us known as Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul) who figured it all out, and lived without sin and blemish? Saul's followers are the main foundations of most modern churches, they believe in resounding white-noise unity that they are sinless, since when Jesus died, all of the world's sin died with him and that their faith is futile unless Jesus was stone dead for days and miraculously woke up again as we can read in 1.Cor 15 and elsewhere in this tosser's correspondence.

Now, Saul, born in Tarsus (Gr. Ταρσῷ Acts 22:3 written in Hebrew תרסו is the most basic way to write 666 using Hebrew gematria), a known killer (Acts 8), a widow maker and bounty hunter who claims he is innocent and blameless and sings to us all in his ramblings that he has not been bitten by the sting of death which is sin (1Cor. 15).

Is it the sheer volume of Saul's Biblical corpus that is the reason that this Pharisee madman's ramblings have somehow managed to turn into what we know to be modern Christian theology? Saul and his followers have completely erased the impact made by Jesus and his reformist rabbinical Judaism and replaced it with this mad man Saul's fairytales. Not only is he sexist and a control freak, but his many timeless lies include that human sacrifice is OK and actually works. I mean, what gives? If there is such a thing as a kosher human, then there are kosher pigs as well. God most certainly did not demonstrate his love to us by sacrificing his only begotten son. It is the faith in and submission to such diabolic doctrines that will eventually lead to this world's end of days, when heaven and earth disappear and a supposed iota is blot out from some Pentateuch somewhere.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Speaking for myself, I am a Christian... not a Paulian. Figuratively speaking, my Bible does not include the epistles of Saul. Just the gospels of Jesus.

Even disregarding Saul of Tarsus' dubious past, there are too many fundamental discrepancies between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Saul to accept Saul as even a true disciple, much less a "chosen" apostle.

I am more inclined to believe that Saul's sole purpose was to infiltrate the fledgling movement in order to find Mary the mother of Jesus and/or Mary Magdalene, probably after his puppet masters realized that they had not been lost at sea in the "boat without oars." Perhaps they forgot that Joseph of Arimathea was an experienced boatsman... or perhaps they didn't realize the grace of Mother Mary. In any event, the PTB of the time could not afford for either Mother Mary to have another divine child... or for Mary Magdalene to bear/raise the divine child(ren) of Christ. And I'm leaning towards the former.

But, of course, I don't know. That's just what makes the most sense to me based upon the limited information I do know.

In any event, Team Jesus here!!!

a reply to: Boadicea

I like to see the 66 books included in the Bible separately, and tend to leave out the theological books and correspondence in the NT in my studies, they are basically irrelevant to Revelation and and how the Gospels relates to the books of OT and requires just enough knowledge of the Torah law to easily see that Saul is a diabolic fraud and what Jesus would call a brood of serpents.

ETA: I am an atheist btw. Not that I see it matters, but if Jesus and Saul went for presidency I would probably voted Jesus, if any of them.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Boadicea

I like to see the 66 books included in the Bible separately, and tend to leave out the theological books and correspondence in the NT in my studies, they are basically irrelevant to Revelation and and how the Gospels relates to the books of OT and requires just enough knowledge of the Torah law to easily see that Saul is a diabolic fraud and what Jesus would call a brood of serpents.

What a great idea! I'd like to see that too.... now that you mention it!

It occurs to me that just as history is written by its victors, so are holy books. This doesn't mean there is no truth in the writings, but that it cannot -- and therefore does not -- contain the whole truth. And that it will include mis-truths, partial-truths and, sadly, untruths. Sometimes knowingly and deliberately, but other times simply because humans are not perfect. We make mistakes.

a reply to: Boadicea

It occurs to me that just as history is written by its victors, so are holy books. This doesn't mean there is no truth in the writings, but that it cannot -- and therefore does not -- contain the whole truth. And that it will include mis-truths, partial-truths and, sadly, untruths. Sometimes knowingly and deliberately, but other times simply because humans are not perfect. We make mistakes.

Even a modern day document like the US constitution suffers some of the same issues the Bible does . Context being king to getting to the understanding of what they were thinking at the time . Most or at the very least a majority will apply a 21st century context to their understanding . Getting into the minds of the founding fathers of a few years past is a challenge but the ancient world is far far removed from today . but is a important consideration to drill down to a truth of the day .

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Boadicea

I like to see the 66 books included in the Bible separately, and tend to leave out the theological books and correspondence in the NT in my studies, they are basically irrelevant to Revelation and and how the Gospels relates to the books of OT and requires just enough knowledge of the Torah law to easily see that Saul is a diabolic fraud and what Jesus would call a brood of serpents.

What a great idea! I'd like to see that too.... now that you mention it!

If you ask me, it's the only way to look at it. Instead of 66 books, we should have had 44 from that era (the 39 books of OT, four gospels and Revelation) and a wide array of chronicles and sagas included that has happened in the history of Christendom since those days.

It occurs to me that just as history is written by its victors, so are holy books.

Aye to that. And they are all highly redacted and serve more or less spurious and not to omit elusive-- agendas. These books weren't written by one person, but put together and published by more or less vicarious courts and priesthoods and schools of a wide array of groups often showing conflicting motifs. Copper serpent the sign of God in one book, destruction of it considered 'good' for being an idol a few books later. Animal worship defined as mandatory in one book, deemed as evil in another.

This doesn't mean there is no truth in the writings, but that it cannot -- and therefore does not -- contain the whole truth. And that it will include mis-truths, partial-truths and, sadly, untruths. Sometimes knowingly and deliberately, but other times simply because humans are not perfect. We make mistakes.

Indeed we do make mistakes, and plenty of them. If I was to point out one thing about Man and the human race that would sum it all up, I would say his incredible ability to screw up in an epic scale. The world's greatest religion worships a guy who is nailed to a bloody scaffold for crying out loud.

This whole religion scam. It's all about the illusion of what's wrong and what's right, who goes to heaven, who goes to hell, not what's truth. Truth is irrelevant to these guys. All is opinion. Most of OT is a lang sequence of blood feuds carried out between rivalling kings and patriarchs. Truth is a subjective illusion in regards to this pile of books, and what is good and right in one situation is deemed wicked and evil in another book written and put together by other scribes.

Even as a neutral witness the books of the Bible shine through as all but infallible. Seen as one corpus it is at best a self-sustaining exhortation on its own legacy's infallibility and excellency. It's like the autobiography of Donald Trump. It is so self-contradictory and pompous that it's sickening, but most people are blinded by all the trees so they don't see the forest for what it is and can't seem to allow themselves to go at it with a bit of scepticism and common sense. The bible? It's a fine mess.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

you have simply removed all from its context and created your pretext and have answered the question of your pretext yourself.

So why invite anyone to give their opinion when you have already your won pretexted answer?

Or is it just get people arguing, disputing and dividing themselves to make a following after the leader of a movement you follow. May all who are in Christ remember this verse and follow it and not men.

Ro 16:17 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

a reply to: Boadicea

There are no fundamental differences in the teachings of Jesus and Paul, the only difference is your not rightly dividing the word of truth and applying the word of truth properly. For example Jesus said and never once gave a meaning to what he was saying

Matt 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

But God by inspiration revealed to Paul what is meant

1Tim 2:4-6 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Gal 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
2Cor 5:17-21 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

These are just a few of the verses of what Jesus taught but never expounded on, but later by revelation gave this to Paul for the church, not a building or organization, but his own body made up of all men.

There are other subjects as well because the Kingdom that was at hand did not come because the leadership of Israel denied that Jesus was their king by delivering him up to be crucified and this because they knew not that his death would reconcile the world not just Israel to God Almighty, not even the prince of the air, Satan himself, knew what the will of God was in Christ's death on the cross, for if he did he himself would not have allowed it to take place.

1Cor 2:6-16 ¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

My encouragement to all is first find the promised preserved word for this generation, then believe every word in it even if others don't, then do this

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Saul was right.

I wipe my figurative feet as a testimony against you all for your Jesus Christ and Paul bashing. Your sin is on you until you repent, whether you are saved for not.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
I wipe my figurative feet as a testimony against you all for your Jesus Christ and Paul bashing. Your sin is on you until you repent, whether you are saved for not.

Like Saul, yourself, Abraham, Noah and even Jesus, I am a sinner, but no sin I do is even remotely in the area of teaching that human sacrifice is good and beneficial to children and the stupid-- or how the teaching that Jesus was stone dead for days while travelling in the spirit to pull off stand-ups in hell and what not-- is somehow mandatory to believe in if you want to catch a plane fare. No sin I do could ever match the Christian agenda or your playing judge and jury about my supposed sin above here.

All the evidence put together I agree that Jesus most likely existed as a mortal man and a historical person, he seems to have been quite wise, but let's face the facts, neither you nor Jesus can be stone dead for three days and then miraculously come back to life. It is the stories about Jesus' life and wisdom and his royal bloodline that make him immortal and worthy of praise, not some impossible miracle and a load of judgemental passive aggressiveness. Jesus obviously survived the crucifixion, and in doing so, he inspired quite a few people to do both good an bad in his name afterwards. Among these millions of inspired people are two usual suspects, Saul and Barnabas. After Saul acquired the Roman noble family name Paulus, he gained access to all the public stages in the Empire, and could force a growing bunch of followers of Christ to follow him anywhere he would please, having them testify in the all these arenas and forums to all sorts of crimes against Rome and the Torah, while he himself escaped justice and prison in power of posing as Roman nobility. He instructed the early church to follow his doctrines, «or else...», the man was a megalomaniac sociopath, a bounty hunter preying on early Christians, proudly boasting about his self-proclaimed sinless nature and demands to be answering only to Caesar himself.

Nah, teach children proper knowledge instead, like math and language, science and economy and toss all of religious make-believe and mind-control BS in the bin, maybe they could include a chapter or two about it in the history books.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Jesus also had a lil' mishap when he was a kid. He killed a classmate in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

www.sacred-texts.com...

I'm thinkin that's a sin.

Paul was sin free at his death, Paul took on Jesus Christs righteousness, sanctified

If Jesus was a sinner then there is no point even discussing anything and your words are wasted here
Christians don't believe Jesus was a sinner, ever

We (Christians) all become sin free in Jesus

By studying the sayings of Jesús and extrapolating it on everything in the OT and NT I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is indeed the word of the Father, his image, one with him and indeed, sinless. Plus, his words shed light on everything in the OT and NT and clarifies them.

He did not throw that stone you make in your example for him not being a sinner simply because he kept his Fathers law and would not break it just to show some fallible teachers of the day that he is sinless.

A number of your threads throw the 666 on Jesús and now you press that stamp on Saul. Well, I for sure know that Jesús is the Aleph-Taw mentioned over 200 times (most often when a promise from the lord is made) in the OT. I know you know those are the first and last letters of the Hebrew aleph-bet. Guess which ones they correspond to in the NT. Yes, Alpha-Omega.

There are simply two religions in the world. Those that believe that the Father created the Son in his own image and the world and everything for his Son, hence making those who believe in the Son his brothers, sisters and mothers.

Then there are the other religions who try to get people to bite more of the apple by making people somehow transcend, and believe in their own power and gain more powers. They fall in the snare that satan himself fell into. Simply abandoning God the Father and splendor in their own image and relishing this world and form. And of course those religions that deny all deities(I include them in the lie of satan, hence making it in my eye the religion of satan).

Bless you all and may you all find the mercy and faith in my Father in heaven through his one true Son and may they send you the Holy Spirit.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Jesus also had a lil' mishap when he was a kid. He killed a classmate in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

www.sacred-texts.com...

I'm thinkin that's a sin.

Yes, and if you look closely, the text refers to the son of Annas, the high priest (called «Anna the scribe» in your text), and the kid was the brother of the high priest Caiaphas, an other son of Annas. In other words, Jesus killed the boy destined to become perhaps the most prominent person around in Jerusalem, The High Priest. Annas and Caiaphas are recorded in the Gospel to have led the battering of Jesus in John 18:12ff and 18:19ff and in Acts 4, Annas as high priest, accompanied by many of his sons-- interrogate Peter and John. In Acts 4:10, it appears Peter is even blaming the entire house of Annas for the whole crucifixion deal altogether.

This little detail is often overlooked, but if we are to believe the story about Jesus killing the boy while still a wee lad (ch.II; Infancy Gospel of Thomas), we should also consider this, that Annas had vengeance in mind when he conducted the flogging of Jesus, and same with Caiaphas, who was the person who suggested that Jesus should die for the benefit of the people. The exact same doctrine is evident with Saul. The idea that Jesus was sacrificed for the blessing of Mankind.

See John 18:14: «It was Caiaphas [high priest, accuser against Jesus before the crucifixion] who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.»

Compare with 1Thess 5:9f «For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.»

originally posted by: Sump3
By studying the sayings of Jesús and extrapolating it on everything in the OT and NT I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is indeed the word of the Father, his image, one with him and indeed, sinless. Plus, his words shed light on everything in the OT and NT and clarifies them.

He did not throw that stone you make in your example for him not being a sinner simply because he kept his Fathers law and would not break it just to show some fallible teachers of the day that he is sinless.

Wow, hefty, you must have studied hard to come to such a neutral and critical conclusion.

A number of your threads throw the 666 on Jesús and now you press that stamp on Saul.

Well I have referred to Saul and his doctrines as the person John of Patmos was hinting at with his little 666 riddle-- for quite some time. 666 is the fake Jesus preached by Saulus, who is worshipped like Father Christmas all across the world by 1/3rd of the world's population-- now wonder-- where have I read about such things before? Ah, Revelation go figure. The teaching that Jesus was sacrificed for the benefit of humankind, that he somehow died for us nailed to the symbol of Mitras killed by the point of a lance only to come back to life after three days-- that is your beast with the wounded head whose wound was healed. It didn't happen the way Saul preaches. Saul is the False Prophet. What Saul teaches is the lie, acting out a grand conspiracy of most epic dimensions on behalf of the Elite and the Empire.

Well, I for sure know that Jesús is the Aleph-Taw mentioned over 200 times (most often when a promise from the lord is made) in the OT.

Well, I and many other people with at least a slight knowledge in biblical Hebrew languages-- know that your alef-tav found more than 200 times in OT is the accusative article or the direct object marker in biblical Hebrew. It is not translated since it makes no sense in English.

Ex. Genesis 1:1 Beresh't (adverb) bara (verb) eloh'm (subject) at-[/at]hashema'm (direct object)....

It's like when translating «The Apple» into Norwegian «Eplet» -- In Norwegian we rarely use the definite article. Your work here is no short of baffling. Great research again. You should really consider becoming a professional analyst. Your president must be very proud!

I know you know those are the first and last letters of the Hebrew aleph-bet. Guess which ones they correspond to in the NT. Yes, Alpha-Omega.

Again, great research. You would really love Atbash cipher, the REAL Alef Tav or Alfar and Omega if you like

The rest of yer reply was so incredibly intrinsic in character that I was simply overwhelmed, so I left it out.

edit on 30-8-2017 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)

I have the stance on the division of Christianity that it is false. By twisting rituals (ie. the splitting, eating the bread and drinking the wine. They even do that wrong) to make people desecrtate the remembrance of Jesús. I believe that the worldly church has been infiltrated and misled by people who had nothing but bad intentions in regard to people. Simply, satanists. After all, he said that his church was a body and that he was the head and those who believe in him would be designated other parts of the body to be one with him. And where two shall come together in his name, there shall be a church and he shall be in the midst of them.

I have yet to come to a conclusion on Saul, his teachings and his life. If he is Simon Magus a puppet of the roman empire and a follower of the satanic religions, the false prophet who preached the beast. I for that reason only try to cling to Jesús teachings but do take the teachings in Sauls letters which are obviously of good (ie. chorinthians2: about love) . At his baptism Jesús was reborn and I believe, sinless and sinned no more. Whether he was sinless before that, that I leave up to my Father in heaven to know.

Yes I know that the aleph-taw is a definite article commonly pronounced as "at/et" but I sincerely believe that it is Jesús marker and that when he was sent to this earth, reached his age and began preaching he was speaking Aramaic and Hebrew to the people and used this as a reference to who he truly was. He may have even spoken greek, I wasn't there.

Keep studying and may my Father in heaven bless you.

a reply to: Sump3

You should start a ministry based on that credo of yours, who knows? You might make a fortune....

Blast, and blast again, I was too late to edit, and I keep messing up with avoiding the # showing up when writing Hebrew words in English, many of these words are censored for supposed profanities-- any mods want to lend a hand? I guess there's no can do with the #'s, but if you could help by replacing the bible quote in my post above with the one included below here, I would be very grateful, I am sort of keen for details.

So nota bene: I made a mistake in the reply above and misspelled a BBCode tag in the bible quote (instead of writing [/ b] I wrote [/ at], so the last part of the text showed up as bold). All letters jod in the bible quote are written as an apostrophe ' since ATS keeps mistaking the name of Genesis in Hebrew as profanity. Instead of writing what shows up as Bere# I write Beresh't, did it with the other jods also just for the sake of consistency. I also edited the words translated God and heaven to read Eloha'am (Elohayam) and hashemay'm (hashemayim) for consistency relating to a couple of my former threads and posts.

Changes to Utnapisjtim
Ex. Genesis 1:1 Beresh't (adverb) bara (verb) Eloha'am (subject) at-hashemay'm (direct object)....

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

needless to say, nobody threw any stones, Jesus included, admitting that he was indeed a sinner as well ---

Jesus did not encourage others to throw a stone nor even consider throwing a stone Himself because if He had encouraged throwing a stone then He would have indeed been a sinner. The only thing you have said that is correct is that Jesus was a wise Begotten Son of God. The commandment of God to the Hebrews was that they shall not commit adultery and the law of Moses declared that if a man and a woman commit adultery both the man and the woman would be put to death by stoning.

Jesus, being wise and sinless, knowing the command of His Father and the penalty of Moses, had no man presented to Him. Just a woman was presented to him with no proof as to what she did. How then could the penalty be just if the charge is bogus or incomplete. But being wise, the Begotten and sinless Son of God warned the woman to sin no more so indeed He knew that the man was being protected by the same accusers of the woman.

The lesson here is that the true Christian should show forgiveness and not be influenced by ones of your nature who do not understand that under the covenant of the Christ Jesus the commands of God are still in effect but the punishments [ordinances] of the commands of God are flexible [ever changing] according to the civil laws of that culture. In other words you confuse the Commandments of the Most High EL with the Laws of Moses.