The 13th Apostle

Originally posted by Quazga

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]

ok...perhaps it's too late for me, what are you getting at with the prostitution thing? I suppose I would be in support of it, if medical things were better regulated and they had brothels for women. (Now they do though...it only took like 50 million years [exageration])

I think I am going to add you as a friend even though I don't really like you.

Originally posted by leira7

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

I like pretty much all of them, once I understand where they are coming from. It's like a friend of mine said once "If you don't know the history of the author, you don't know what you're reading"

Originally posted by leira7

Originally posted by Quazga

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]

ok...perhaps it's too late for me, what are you getting at with the prostitution thing? I suppose I would be in support of it, if medical things were better regulated and they had brothels for women. (Now they do though...it only took like 50 million years [exageration])

I think I am going to add you as a friend even though I don't really like you.

The only thing I'm getting at, is that morals are relative to their time period. Everyone has different perspectives given their own experience, and everyone feels their perspectives are somehow divinely accurate.

Personally I find that the only morals that are worth anything, are those which make me strong and happy.

because you and I seem to differ on some things, I have added you as my friend...Do you have enough posts to send U2U's?

Paul may of been sexist or even inspired by less than holy things, but this argument is Missing the Most Important Aspect of Paul's Church, which is:

The Severing of the bond between Christians(Notsrim) and it's parent faith Judaism. Paul took everything that the 12 Apostles and Jesus had practiced of their Jewish parental faith and threw it out. Paul's Church became intensely critical of what it called Judaizers.

Pauline Christianity
en.wikipedia.org...
Judaizers
en.wikipedia.org...
Christian Torah Submission
en.wikipedia.org...

Judaizers were Christians who continued to practice Circumcision and follow the Torah. The Church of Jerusalem founded by the Apostle James was labeled Judiazers. It in fact was so intertwined with the Jewish faith that when the Romans expelled the Jews after the Jewish War the Jerusalem Church was expelled as well. Even the fathers of the Roman Church like Paul were intensely critical of Judaizers. Remnants of the Jerusalem Church known as Ebionites and Nazarenes were highly criticized due to their Jewish practices.

Ebionites
en.wikipedia.org...
Nazarenes
en.wikipedia.org...

Constantine finalized the Severing at the Council of Nicea. This was the creed established in Constantinople: "I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads & sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and Synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with The Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils."

Source: Parks, James The Conflict Of The Church And The Synagogue Atheneum, New York, 1974, pp. 397 - 398

Thus a new religion was born neither Christian or Jewish. The Ebionites and Nazarenes vanished into history probably due to persecution and genocide. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church was and is the only Church to retain much of its Jewish roots.






[edit on 10/8/07 by MikeboydUS]

"Remnants of the Jerusalem Church known as Ebionites and Nazarenes were highly criticized due to their Jewish practices."

Wasn't Jesus a Nazarene or something similar?

All this supports the theory that the established, Roman, Pauline Church, and it's derivatives, are a sham and built upon corruption, lies and betrayals.
Where does this leave all those who blindly put so much faith in organised religions and "western" civilisation as a whole?

os so basically a lot of people know what paul may have/have not said but apparently noone knows why he changed his name. was it an order from someone in his vision?

AV, a possible expanation

www.thirdmill.org...

or

www.kencollins.com...

Take your pick.

Originally posted by agent violet
os so basically a lot of people know what paul may have/have not said but apparently noone knows why he changed his name. was it an order from someone in his vision?

I cant find anything that says why he changed his name but think about this.

Saul the original name is Hebrew, its actual form is Shaul. His Jewish name.

Paul is actually Paulus, which is Latin and was a popular Roman name.

He got rid of his Jewish name to take on a Roman one. Hmm.

[edit on 10/8/07 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by agent violet
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?

I agree that we shouldn't believe a book that was "created" for use as doctrine. Especially by people outside of the original teachings, etc.

The name paul is said to mean "small". could it be him comparing god's power (size) to his own?

I'd like to note a few things.

First, Paul meant "small", and Saul was certainly that, probably not even making 5 feet (estimates place him around 4'11"). He was called Paul by many Romans in a derogatory fashion. After walking with Christ for a while, though, he seems to have started to embrace this name, seeing himself as exactly that, small, compared to his master, Jesus Christ. If you note in Acts when Barnabas takes Paul to Antioch to preach with him, he is still called Saul.

It is also important to note that Paul was a Pharisee among Pharisees, meaning he was considered extremely knowledgeable about everything Judea, as well as much of the culture of the day. He was sent to the best schools, and was one smart cookie. In that, he did relate much of the law to the church of the day. So, when Paul spoke of homosexuality and women, he was not making this stuff up, but relating what God said in the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Bible. Remember, Christ came here not to remove the law, but to fulfill it. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians, all things in Christ are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. Yes, we have Christ's grace covering us, but that does not mean we are to sin intentionally relying on Grace. Christ Himself said that whomever loves Him will keep His commandments, and in Matthew 18 makes the point that it is that love and that relationship that He wants, not works, as He talks of many who prophesied in His name, who did great works in His name, and yet He will say begone from me for I did not know you. The Greek word used for "know" there means to relationally know, not intellectually know, as many gnostics tend to support.

Finally, yes, Paul did create some division in the early church because he believed Christ's message was to go to the gentiles, and Peter did not. However, after Peter had his vision of the veil being torn before going to Cornelius, Peter realized that the message was to go to the Gentiles, and that he had gotten it wrong. This, too, caused, at one point, Paul to call him out when Peter was willing to eat and preach to Gentiles except when a Jew was around, at which point Peter would shun the Gentiles to the point where even Joshua, known better by his nickname "Barnabas", or Son of Encouragement, even went so far as to start to shun Gentiles in Peter's presence.

Originally posted by agent violet
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]

The changing of a name in ancient times was done to symbolized a transformation. Saul's conversion falls into this category.

Other examples include but are not limited to...
Abraham and Sarah formerly Abram and Sarai;
Peter the apostle formerly Simon; etc....

Originally posted by palg1

Originally posted by agent violet
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]

The changing of a name in ancient times was done to symbolized a transformation. Saul's conversion falls into this category.

Other examples include but are not limited to...
Abraham and Sarah formerly Abram and Sarai;
Peter the apostle formerly Simon; etc....

This isn't just an ancient practice. It has continued up to today even. Thats why Malcom X was named thusly.

This isn't just an ancient practice. It has continued up to today even. Thats why Malcom X was named thusly.



Good pointe.

In my study of the old I often forget to consider that these customs continue through to the present. Thanks for reminding me to keep my eyes open.

I was always under the impression that the 13th Apostle was named Rufus, and he was written out of the Bible simply because he was black.

Originally posted by junglejake
I'd like to note a few things.

First, Paul meant "small", and Saul was certainly that, probably not even making 5 feet (estimates place him around 4'11"). He was called Paul by many Romans in a derogatory fashion. After walking with Christ for a while, though, he seems to have started to embrace this name, seeing himself as exactly that, small, compared to his master, Jesus Christ. If you note in Acts when Barnabas takes Paul to Antioch to preach with him, he is still called Saul.

It is also important to note that Paul was a Pharisee among Pharisees, meaning he was considered extremely knowledgeable about everything Judea, as well as much of the culture of the day. He was sent to the best schools, and was one smart cookie. In that, he did relate much of the law to the church of the day. So, when Paul spoke of homosexuality and women, he was not making this stuff up, but relating what God said in the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Bible. Remember, Christ came here not to remove the law, but to fulfill it. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians, all things in Christ are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. Yes, we have Christ's grace covering us, but that does not mean we are to sin intentionally relying on Grace. Christ Himself said that whomever loves Him will keep His commandments, and in Matthew 18 makes the point that it is that love and that relationship that He wants, not works, as He talks of many who prophesied in His name, who did great works in His name, and yet He will say begone from me for I did not know you. The Greek word used for "know" there means to relationally know, not intellectually know, as many gnostics tend to support.

Finally, yes, Paul did create some division in the early church because he believed Christ's message was to go to the gentiles, and Peter did not. However, after Peter had his vision of the veil being torn before going to Cornelius, Peter realized that the message was to go to the Gentiles, and that he had gotten it wrong. This, too, caused, at one point, Paul to call him out when Peter was willing to eat and preach to Gentiles except when a Jew was around, at which point Peter would shun the Gentiles to the point where even Joshua, known better by his nickname "Barnabas", or Son of Encouragement, even went so far as to start to shun Gentiles in Peter's presence.

Interesting take upon what has been touched by man over and over again. I would like to add that the gnostics were not 'intellectual' but 'spiritual'. They were like the Kabbahlist, but did not partake in the 'Torah or Tanak'. I do not think that they even kept the oral Torah. They were vegetarians I believe. Remember that the Jewish people of the Judaism religion feel that Yeshua did not meet the Messiah conditions. But it sure has made an interesting 2000 years non?

Originally posted by jerico65
I was always under the impression that the 13th Apostle was named Rufus, and he was written out of the Bible simply because he was black.

LOL, this is the best reply yet!

Originally posted by constantine70

Originally posted by jerico65
I was always under the impression that the 13th Apostle was named Rufus, and he was written out of the Bible simply because he was black.

LOL, this is the best reply yet!

Just channelling my inner Kevin Smith.

I think what can be seen here, in modern times and in the history of the bible that when men take "holy" teachings and turn them into rules and try to apply them to the masses.

most people today still practice ancient practises, halloween, christmas etc fed directly into the "faiths" that already exsisted. Paul was obviously a powerful man, to quote a modern event, that of the envasion of the middle east by the west , whatever their reasoning, shows that power can influence the masses. If everyone to didnt not like the war on terror acted on those beliefs then the world powers would actually have to losten, as it is they do not really know the truth, it is much easier to accept the information givin , because as stated in other posts we act on morals not faith.

I will explain what i mean, morals are what is generally tolerable by a group of people, although the individuals of each group may vary on what is moral there is a general concencus on the over all morals. Thats why it is not ok to kill a child as was mentioned earlier, there are just somethings that dont need to be taught. However do you allow a child to get close enough to you or yours to explode a bomb? we have all been given life by the universe, it is up to us to protect life starting with our own.

Faith is acting on what you believe to be true in your heart, and i mean really in your heart, drop ego drop desire drop the kudos of this world and accept everything for what it is, that is true faith, and no person can tell you how to do that it must happen through your own determination.

For me christain belief system is different from the teachings of Christ, the christain are great at marketing, and they are very wealthy. It is up to you whether you buy the product.

MHO