The 13th Apostle

Before you read this I ask that you please keep an open mind, after all this is just speculation

As some of you may know, there were twelve original Apostles that followed Jesus. After the crucifixtion of Jesus, these apostles became missionaries and began to spread the gospel (teachings of Jesus Christ) to surrounding areas. All of the Apostles were heavily persecuted and sentenced to death under Roman juristiction.
There were people who worked for the government and would gather Christians to be put in jail and later sentenced to death. One of these governemnt workers was a man named Saul. Saul was personally responsible for killing an apostle (Stephen). On the road to Damascus, Saul had a vision. This vision had serious physical effects on Saul. He was blind and couldn't eat nor drink for 3 days. Saul then changed his name to Paul and began calling himself an apostle. Almost immediately after conversion, "Apostle Paul" began to write letters to area churches (primarily to ones in Rome) which comprised of proper management and overall moralities the congregation should maintain. Here is a taste of what Apostle Paul said:

“I desire therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” [cite bible sub numerals] 1 Timothy verse 9-15”

The most important thing to note here is the usage of "I" language. Apostle Paul has written many books in the New Testament and a majority of them read just like this, he state what he prefers, or wants to see happen in the church and nothing of what God wants or desires. Also, if you compare the teachings of Jesus to Apostle Paul, you will notice that there are many contradictions between the two. For one, Jesus spoke that "A House divided cannot stand" [matthew 12:5] and yet it seems that in this passage above, Apostle Paul is promoting sexual division and gendered separation within the church. it is also important to note that the only sexual topics Jesus discusses is marriage and adultery (having extramarrital affairs). Jesus says nothing about fornication, homosexuality, or a "woman's place".

Sadly, early Christians decided to change the central focus of Christianity from Jesus-based teachings of peace to that of sexual morality. These gender based and judgemental thought patterns are directly a result of the teachings of Apostle Paul and are still around today among MANY christians. Don't believe me? Count the number of female Popes ,Bishops, or priests.

I must say that I find it very ironic that the most influential apostle of the Christian Orthodox canon was the one who did not know Jesus personally and did not witness anything he taught or did. I do not think it is possible for Apostle Paul to gain equivalent knowledge of the teachings of Christ which accumalated to a three year period in such little time since he automatically began writing churches after his conversion.

A final thought, if an evil force truly wanted to corrupt the church, what better way than to be able to write inside the "holy" text? I think it is significant that Apostle Paul is the 13th apostle, I believe this alludes or symbolizes the connection between the Christian Church and Free Masonry.

Originally posted by leira7
A final thought, if an evil force truly wanted to corrupt the church, what better way than to be able to write inside the "holy" text? I think it is significant that Apostle Paul is the 13th apostle, I believe this alludes or symbolizes the connection between the Christian Church and Free Masonry.

You're not the first person to question the motives and the authority of the Apostle Paul.

It has been said that humans should return to the religion of Jesus and dispense with Paul's religion about Jesus.

I don't think it can rightly be said that Paul wrote within the "holy" texts as his writings were merely epistles written in consultation to the various Christian churches.

His writings were later included in the canon that would become known as the New Testament.

Also, I'm not sure where the leap to Free Masonry is supposed to occur. Saul of Tarsus, who became known as Paul, was a tent maker.



[edit on 2007/8/9 by GradyPhilpott]

Yes, this is quite well known to those who dig deep enough. Give the 'Gnostic Gospels' a google - all will be revealed

Here's a few good places to start...

www.gnosis.org...

home.epix.net...

www.ibiblio.org...

virtualreligion.net...

www.gnostic-jesus.com...

J.

well i dont really have 'faith' in that book or any book for that matter. but this paul guy doesn't sound very nice to say the least.
oh and why did he change his name to paul anyway?



[edit on 8/9/2007 by agent violet]

Originally posted by agent violet

oh and why did he change his name to paul anyway?

I have no idea, but I think it might have had something to do with the meaning of the name Paul, can anyone help me out here?

But Paul also goes on to say that nothing is inherently Good or Bad, in Romans 14:14 But to he who thinketh it so.

His desires for the Church and the decorum thereof was more to allow it to maintain itself in light of the ways of the world during that time. As a persecuter of Christians, he knew intimately what they would do that would get the goverment up in arms.

He was merely giving guidance to a organization on how to allow itself to continue. At the same time of course he was admonishing others.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Also, I'm not sure where the leap to Free Masonry is supposed to occur. Saul of Tarsus, who became known as Paul, was a tent maker.

What I was alluding to was the possibility of Apostle Paul/Saul seeing a vision of what he thought to be God/Jesus but instead it was in fact the "evil/demonic" powers at hand. I don't mean to get all spiritual on you, but I do think that masonry is a form of satanic something, and perhaps as a clue for future masons, they would see that Paul was the 13th apostle and take that into consideration. Perhaps Paul really thought he was doing good, but in actuality he was being manipulated by the enemy/devil/evil forces.
I do not consider Paul's writings to be holy or divine in any way, but since most christians consider their bible to be the "holy text" (for them)
A couple of books in the bible didn't make the cut -i.e. book of Jubilee, Book of Enoch -and I know that those two for sure were found in the dead sea scrolls...it just makes you wonder who decided to put things in and leave things out.

Originally posted by leira7

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Also, I'm not sure where the leap to Free Masonry is supposed to occur. Saul of Tarsus, who became known as Paul, was a tent maker.

What I was alluding to was the possibility of Apostle Paul/Saul seeing a vision of what he thought to be God/Jesus but instead it was in fact the "evil/demonic" powers at hand. I don't mean to get all spiritual on you, but I do think that masonry is a form of satanic something, and perhaps as a clue for future masons, they would see that Paul was the 13th apostle and take that into consideration. Perhaps Paul really thought he was doing good, but in actuality he was being manipulated by the enemy/devil/evil forces.
I do not consider Paul's writings to be holy or divine in any way, but since most christians consider their bible to be the "holy text" (for them)
A couple of books in the bible didn't make the cut -i.e. book of Jubilee, Book of Enoch -and I know that those two for sure were found in the dead sea scrolls...it just makes you wonder who decided to put things in and leave things out.

I can't think of the guys name right now... Erasmus maybe, but anyhow at the time the bible was cannonized lots of things were thrown out because they were too ostentatious to a Roman culture. Remember that Rome didnt like Christians, so those who wer trying to get Rome to accept Christians had to get the rest of them to settle down. So he basically said that everything requried to understand the Christ could be found in the 4 synoptic gospels we have in the protestant bible today.

It was like during the times of civil rights, if Blacks were to be a part of American society, Black leaders had to exhort them to *act liek white America* and not rile up the fears and hatred of the group they were trying to be accepted by.

Most of the Gnostic Gospels were focused on the individuals role with God. And that was just too counter to the Roman version of what a religion should be.

Originally posted by Quazga
But Paul also goes on to say that nothing is inherently Good or Bad, in Romans 14:14 But to he who thinketh it so.

Romans 14:14
"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. "

Don't satanist believe the same thing? Nothing is good or bad, just do what you want to do and believe what you want to believe because at the end of the day its about your perspective...?
To say that there is nothing inherently bad is like saying that mudering a two year old is ok and regardless of what someone else might think, it doesn't matter because I did what I wanted to do and I don't see it as bad.

if this is the case, then that goes right in line with the satanic believe of giving into the "carnal beast that is man"

Surely we can't all have different opinions about someting and be right, can we?

and let's say that Apostle Paul is saying that nothing is really unclean, then why does he rant about homosexuals in this passage

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which is due.” Romans 1 1:26-27

why is he constantly contradicting everything he says?

Originally posted by leira7

Originally posted by Quazga
But Paul also goes on to say that nothing is inherently Good or Bad, in Romans 14:14 But to he who thinketh it so.

Romans 14:14
"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. "

Don't satanist believe the same thing? Nothing is good or bad, just do what you want to do and believe what you want to believe because at the end of the day its about your perspective...?

Actually no. Paul goes on to say, don't cause your brother to stumble, if he believes eating meat is a sin, then don't tempt him by eating meat in front of him. In other words, respect your fellow mans beliefs.. doesn't sound like satanism to me.

To say that there is nothing inherently bad is like saying that mudering a two year old is ok and regardless of what someone else might think, it doesn't matter because I did what I wanted to do and I don't see it as bad.

If nothing is bad or good, then murdering a two year old would be neither. However, the subjective guilt it might cause you and the subjective pain it might cause the child and it's family all has repercussions.

You can't say something is OK if nothing is good or bad, because OK is measured on the same spectrum we just threw out.

if this is the case, then that goes right in line with the satanic believe of giving into the "carnal beast that is man"

Surely we can't all have different opinions about someting and be right, can we?

and let's say that Apostle Paul is saying that nothing is really unclean, then why does he rant about homosexuals in this passage

“For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which is due.” Romans 1 1:26-27

why is he constantly contradicting everything he says?

Do you have any idea what a paradox is?

Originally posted by Quazga

So he basically said that everything requried to understand the Christ could be found in the 4 synoptic gospels we have in the protestant bible today.

Most of the Gnostic Gospels were focused on the individuals role with God. And that was just too counter to the Roman version of what a religion should be.

Whoa Whoa Whoa...first of all, just the thought of having a monotheistic religion was enough for Romans to disagree with considering/converting to Christianity, and since the Romans were VERY sexually liberal in their day, I would find it very difficult for them to accept all of what Apostle Paul was saying in his books..

Originally posted by leira7

Originally posted by Quazga

So he basically said that everything requried to understand the Christ could be found in the 4 synoptic gospels we have in the protestant bible today.

Most of the Gnostic Gospels were focused on the individuals role with God. And that was just too counter to the Roman version of what a religion should be.

Whoa Whoa Whoa...first of all, just the thought of having a monotheistic religion was enough for Romans to disagree with considering/converting to Christianity, and since the Romans were VERY sexually liberal in their day, I would find it very difficult for them to accept all of what Apostle Paul was saying in his books..

Actually, if you go back and look, that a woman should be chaste was a huge Roman Moral. Although not very well practiced.

Like many cultures, they said one thing and did another. You should really study more Roman history. Especially as it relates to the rise of Christianity. In fact, the moralism that is inside of Christianity today comes directly from the Roman Influences. In many other sects of Christianity, moralism was never a focus. In fact there were some bishops at the council of Nicea that preached against virginity.

Originally posted by Quazga
Actually no. Paul goes on to say, don't cause your brother to stumble, if he believes eating meat is a sin, then don't tempt him by eating meat in front of him. In other words, respect your fellow mans beliefs.. doesn't sound like satanism to me.

To say that there is nothing inherently bad is like saying that mudering a two year old is ok and regardless of what someone else might think, it doesn't matter because I did what I wanted to do and I don't see it as bad.

If nothing is bad or good, then murdering a two year old would be neither. However, the subjective guilt it might cause you and the subjective pain it might cause the child and it's family all has repercussions.

You can't say something is OK if nothing is good or bad, because OK is measured on the same spectrum we just threw out.

Do you have any idea what a paradox is?

First, by saying that it was "OK" to kill a child, I meant acceptable, or good because it would be a choice I was going to make because I wanted to. So again I ask you, if I wanted to kill a two year old, is that GOOD?

Second, Do you have any idea what a Paradox is, because I don't know about the rest of you, but I am seriously feeling it with Apostle Paul. --- Tell me why he says,
"Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. but he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. "Romans 14: 22-23
-- So if nothing is good or bad then why is he pointing out sin yet again. last time I checked, sin in the bible =bad

and you can't make up moral codes for you self...there are just natural laws that people abide by, golden rules so to speak...We can't just do whatever the hell we want...

As a woman, I find tremendous differences between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul. When you read the words of Jesus you find a love and respect for women. Not so much with Paul. At least what I can see.

An interesting note: Jesus NEVER told us to be celebate. Paul did.

TT

Originally posted by leira7

Originally posted by Quazga
Actually no. Paul goes on to say, don't cause your brother to stumble, if he believes eating meat is a sin, then don't tempt him by eating meat in front of him. In other words, respect your fellow mans beliefs.. doesn't sound like satanism to me.

To say that there is nothing inherently bad is like saying that mudering a two year old is ok and regardless of what someone else might think, it doesn't matter because I did what I wanted to do and I don't see it as bad.

If nothing is bad or good, then murdering a two year old would be neither. However, the subjective guilt it might cause you and the subjective pain it might cause the child and it's family all has repercussions.

You can't say something is OK if nothing is good or bad, because OK is measured on the same spectrum we just threw out.

Do you have any idea what a paradox is?

First, by saying that it was "OK" to kill a child, I meant acceptable, or good because it would be a choice I was going to make because I wanted to. So again I ask you, if I wanted to kill a two year old, is that GOOD?

Second, Do you have any idea what a Paradox is, because I don't know about the rest of you, but I am seriously feeling it with Apostle Paul. --- Tell me why he says,
"Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. but he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. "Romans 14: 22-23
-- So if nothing is good or bad then why is he pointing out sin yet again. last time I checked, sin in the bible =bad

It's right there in black and white. Basically Sin is not objective. If you believe you have done wrong, then you have. If you don't, then you haven't.

Keep in mind that the first "sin" was eating from the tree of "Knowledge of Good and Evil" Sin doesn't mean bad, it means seperation from God. So if you never had knowledge of Good or Evil, then you would never be seperate from God. This is what Walking in the Spirit is.

The Buddhists call this "Right Action" yet will never say what that right action actually is, because it's not an objective truth, but to be found in the moment.

Originally posted by Quazga

Actually, if you go back and look, that a woman should be chaste was a huge Roman Moral. Although not very well practiced.

Like many cultures, they said one thing and did another. You should really study more Roman history. Especially as it relates to the rise of Christianity. In fact, the moralism that is inside of Christianity today comes directly from the Roman Influences. In many other sects of Christianity, moralism was never a focus. In fact there were some bishops at the council of Nicea that preached against virginity.

Look I don't really appreciate your tone here, I am trying to have an intellectual discussion about the impact of Apostle Paul's teachings onto Christianity itself. I have read up on Roman history and if it weren't for Constantine the Great establishing through the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. a law calling for Religious Tolerance, Christianity wouldn't be as prevalent. Christianity gained popularity within Rome because Constantine promoted it, and eventually it became the official religion of the State of Rome.
However, it is important to look at the trend Apostle Paul set within Christianity, just read some of the writings of Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine.

Originally posted by TexasT
As a woman, I find tremendous differences between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul. When you read the words of Jesus you find a love and respect for women. Not so much with Paul. At least what I can see.

An interesting note: Jesus NEVER told us to be celebate. Paul did.

TT

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!

when I was reading how well Jesus handled the situation with the adulterous woman, and how an angry mob of people were going to stone her to death if Jesus wouldn't have stepped in. I thought about how Apostle Paul would have acted in the same situation and I wondered if he would have just sat back and said stone the bitch.

Originally posted by leira7

Originally posted by TexasT
As a woman, I find tremendous differences between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul. When you read the words of Jesus you find a love and respect for women. Not so much with Paul. At least what I can see.

An interesting note: Jesus NEVER told us to be celebate. Paul did.

TT

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!

when I was reading how well Jesus handled the situation with the adulterous woman, and how an angry mob of people were going to stone her to death if Jesus wouldn't have stepped in. I thought about how Apostle Paul would have acted in the same situation and I wondered if he would have just sat back and said stone the bitch.

Nope, he prolly would have said the same thing as Jesus, had he been influenced by Jesus at that point.

Sounds like you just think Paul is a misogynist (sp?)

Originally posted by leira7

Originally posted by Quazga

Actually, if you go back and look, that a woman should be chaste was a huge Roman Moral. Although not very well practiced.

Like many cultures, they said one thing and did another. You should really study more Roman history. Especially as it relates to the rise of Christianity. In fact, the moralism that is inside of Christianity today comes directly from the Roman Influences. In many other sects of Christianity, moralism was never a focus. In fact there were some bishops at the council of Nicea that preached against virginity.

Look I don't really appreciate your tone here, I am trying to have an intellectual discussion about the impact of Apostle Paul's teachings onto Christianity itself. I have read up on Roman history and if it weren't for Constantine the Great establishing through the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. a law calling for Religious Tolerance, Christianity wouldn't be as prevalent. Christianity gained popularity within Rome because Constantine promoted it, and eventually it became the official religion of the State of Rome.
However, it is important to look at the trend Apostle Paul set within Christianity, just read some of the writings of Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine.

You gotta watch Augustine.. remember he was a sex addict before his conversion ,so of course he was real opposed to sex.

But Aquinas, I love him.. he actually said that getting rid of prostitution is like removing the moat from a castle... all the muck backs up into society.



[edit on 10-8-2007 by Quazga]

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Quazga]

Originally posted by Quazga

Sounds like you just think Paul is a misogynist (sp?)

well, like my friend TexasT I don't think Apostle Paul was very woman friendly...I like Jesus, I dislike Apostle Paul