Saul, Adherent of Christ or Anti Christ?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   
This is a continuation from a previous thread where the OP suggested I start another so we wouldn't hijack the one we were on.Everyone please feel free to weigh in.You may be familiar with the story already however, those who are not I will give you a quick overview.

Saul was a Hellenist Jew who was one of the most active persecutors against an early sect of Aramaic and Hellenist Jews of Christ followers AKA the Way.

One day on his way to Damascus intent on rooting out followers of this sect,he was knocked to the ground and blinded by a blaze of light. He then heard a voice say "Saul,Saul, why do you persecute me? Who are you lord? asked the stricken Saul. I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.but rise and enter the city and you will be told what to do.

After that vision, apparition, dream, (what ever you want to call it)he continued to Damascus where he spent three days blinded in a stupor.

Then a man named Ananias, who was a follower of the Way,was told by Jesus that this man Saul was praying and that Ananias was to go and lay his hand on him so that his sight may be restored.Ananias was hesitant and said to Jesus,I have heard many reports on this man Saul and how he harmed many saints (followers of the Way) And has come to Damascus by authority of the chief Priest to arrest all who the name of Jesus. Jesus answered and said,Saul is my chosen instrument to carry his name before the Gentiles, and will be showed how much he must suffer for his name.

Ananias went and cured him of his blindness and from that day forward Saul went from persecuting the Hellenist Jews that followed Christ to becoming one. Long story short, Saul ended up preaching the Gospel of Jesus though out the lands.

Eventually this small sect of Christ followers called the Way would eventually be called Christians.Saul's final years would be spent as a Roman prisoner. He was most likely beheaded.His soul mission in life was to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus.

Some would have you believe that Saul was an anti Christ and that he founded Christianity which is the false religion that goes against all that was taught by Jesus in the Gospels.Their claims are the usual contradictions that are easily refutable.

My reasoning is this, If these people believe what Jesus was saying in the Gospels (Matthew,Mark,Luke , John) Why cant they believe that Jesus appeared to Saul,and Ananias in the book of Acts? They were both authored by the same authors.Why believe one and not the other?

If you have any comments or would like to help me figure this out please do.

Mods, please post where appropriate. thanks and Happy New year!




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
So many people pick apart the Bible, keeping this, and throwing out that, and they believe that proves their superior understanding, I guess. When I first asked Jesus into my heart, I found the Gospels spoke to me, but Paul ticked me off because I was a feminist before I was a Christian. I would have liked to throw out what he said, too. All that talk about women keeping silence in the church, and covering their heads, and such, really raised my hackles. I saw it as really sexist, and I think that many women dislike Paul for that reason, and want to toss him. If one gets past their initial reactions to him, and does an inductive study of the verses that disturb us, then he no longer seems so sexist. I think women in particular have to do that before they can accept anything that he says.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
great thread me myself think it was amazing of jesus to pick saul who had a pretty bad name through out the followers of jesus and it totaly worked because
christianity grew from then onwards

peace

[edit on 2-1-2010 by digby888]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by novacs4me
So many people pick apart the Bible, keeping this, and throwing out that, and they believe that proves their superior understanding, I guess. When I first asked Jesus into my heart, I found the Gospels spoke to me, but Paul ticked me off because I was a feminist before I was a Christian. I would have liked to throw out what he said, too. All that talk about women keeping silence in the church, and covering their heads, and such, really raised my hackles. I saw it as really sexist, and I think that many women dislike Paul for that reason, and want to toss him. If one gets past their initial reactions to him, and does an inductive study of the verses that disturb us, then he no longer seems so sexist. I think women in particular have to do that before they can accept anything that he says.


Wow, okay, I see where you are coming from. Even till this day in middle eastern countries woman are treated like second class citizens.Still, this is no reason to cherry pick the Bible. I believe its there for a reason, and regardless of ones personal view on it it should not be twisted and turned to support that view.You find a lot of this here on ATS.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by digby888
great thread me myself think it was amazing of jesus to pick saul who had a pretty bad name through out the followers of jesus and it totaly worked because
christianity grew from then onwards

peace

[edit on 2-1-2010 by digby888]



Yeah, its amazing how fast it spread straight from Jesus' own words to what it is today.However, the OP sees different.


Christianity is the anti-Christ religion. Basically everything about it at it's base is against the things Jesus taught.

Lets go down the list.

1. Religion in the name of Christ? Check.
2. Brought about by someone who comes after Jesus, while Jesus warns that which comes after him has nothing for him(Paul)? Check.
3. That man appeals to the political powers of this world? Check.
4. Marriage of church and state as a result? Check.
5. Imbeded with "Pagan/Mystery Religion"? Check.
6. Proceeds to then go around killing everyone who doesn't convert to their religion? Check.
7. Is not persecuted, but instead does the persecution. Check.
8. Has built it's following throw death and destruction and sin? Check.
9. Won't be happy until it's the 1 world religion? Check.
10. Promotes ignorance and deception? Check.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 
jesus has taught me things like how to love one another how not to judge how to try and see beuty in every thing and every one how ever hard it may be if these are bad things then i do not know what is good



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


I believe you will find your answerer is because of the way the bible was put together in the first place, especially the New testament, When one does do some reading and research in to the bible, one does find that it was actually put together by a few very selfish individuals with the aim of controlling the masses. They were also the ones who decided which of the many books, teachings and readings were and were not to be included. As i am now a none believer because of things like this, and many other reasons, things like dictating to women what they must and must not do, and stoning to death gay people, or those who chose to work on the Sabbath, etc. (to put it loosely though I have done my research and its there for all to see) Many people will say that some of the things said in the bible are not to be taken literally, yet it is also said that the bible is the word of god, and the word of god is perfect. IMO this is simply not true. so with that in mind, it leaves itself open for people to take and believe in the parts they want to, and leave out the parts they do not believe to be true. I do wonder how very different the world would look today though had some of the more accepted books of the time been left in. here is a list of some of those not included which some believe they should have and were important.
The lost books



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I hate to admit it, but I have no clue where you stand on these issues, Oliveoil. Are you pro-Paul or anti-Paul? Pro-Christ or anti-Christ? Pro-church or anti-church? Your answers confuse me. Forgive me for not getting it. Thanks!



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by novacs4me
 



Originally posted by novacs4me
I hate to admit it, but I have no clue where you stand on these issues, Oliveoil. Are you pro-Paul or anti-Paul? Pro-Christ or anti-Christ? Pro-church or anti-church? Your answers confuse me. Forgive me for not getting it. Thanks!


I think my avatar explains where I stand. I am non denominational who tends to side with Catholic theology. I believe that Jesus gave Paul/Saul the football and he ran with it. If you read the top of this thread you would see that this is a continuation from another where the person I was discussing this with disagreed based on his facts which I quoted but will quote again.


Christianity is the anti-Christ religion. Basically everything about it at it's base is against the things Jesus taught.

Lets go down the list.

1. Religion in the name of Christ? Check.
2. Brought about by someone who comes after Jesus, while Jesus warns that which comes after him has nothing for him(Paul)? Check.
3. That man appeals to the political powers of this world? Check.
4. Marriage of church and state as a result? Check.
5. Imbeded with "Pagan/Mystery Religion"? Check.
6. Proceeds to then go around killing everyone who doesn't convert to their religion? Check.
7. Is not persecuted, but instead does the persecution. Check.
8. Has built it's following throw death and destruction and sin? Check.
9. Won't be happy until it's the 1 world religion? Check.
10. Promotes ignorance and deception? Check.


As I am waiting for this person to continue our conversation, I would like to know what others think.
Sorry for the confusion.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil


Saul was a Hellenist Jew who was one of the most active persecutors against an early sect of Aramaic and Hellenist Jews of Christ followers AKA the Way.

Actually he was of Benjamin, and although we assume he spoke Greek, his education was not along the lines of those known as Hellinised Jews. Pharisees taught the Law as that which a person devoted himself to in order to be right with God. Saul was a Pharisee.

The Hellenized Jews were more mystical, teaching devotion to wisdom/word as a mystic entity (proto-cosmic christ) who then wrote the Law on the heart, to be followed. These were the ones who most readily accepted Jesus as Messiah, and extended messiahship to christhood, thereby thinking of Jesus as the eternal wisdom/word Christ existing with God from eternity and the actual instrument of God in creation. This group is the one properly called Christian.

Saul the Pharisee persecuted the Christians(Hellenized Jewish believers) even while Aramaic speaking Jewish believers of Jesus as son of David openly taught on the temple grounds under leadership of James.

Paul did not come up with Christianity(eternal cosmic christ) he learned it from Christians.


Lets go down the list.

1. Religion in the name of Christ? Check.
2. Brought about by someone who comes after Jesus, while Jesus warns that which comes after him has nothing for him(Paul)? Check.
3. That man appeals to the political powers of this world? Check.
4. Marriage of church and state as a result? Check.
5. Imbeded with "Pagan/Mystery Religion"? Check.
6. Proceeds to then go around killing everyone who doesn't convert to their religion? Check.
7. Is not persecuted, but instead does the persecution. Check.
8. Has built it's following throw death and destruction and sin? Check.
9. Won't be happy until it's the 1 world religion? Check.
10. Promotes ignorance and deception? Check.

Let's go down the list.

1) His letters begin grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. It's obvious he taught the Father as God, and Jesus as the clearest expression of God to man and the one through whom man is considered right with God. Don't no if check or uncheck.

2) Much came after Jesus, including James. again ?

3) He appealed to kings and judges to convert. ?

4) I think that's a definite uncheck.

5) Not any more than other Christians eg author of John or author of Hebrews. The christ concept, though also used by mystery religions was not particularly pagan, but rather a merging of wisdom literature with Greek philosophy rather than Greek religion. ?

6) uncheck

7) persecuted by idolaters, Pharisees, temple devotees, and anti-helenized believers in Jesus. Executed by Rome. uncheck

8) uncheck

9) He taught that all would be subjected to Christ, then Christ hands the kingdom back to the Father. check

10) Promoted knowledge of God through Jesus. uncheck

score: checks 1
unchecks: 5
not sure: 4

Personally, I don't consider Paul as anti-christ, I do however find it disturbing that as much as he claimed to not be taught by men, he did learn of cosmic-christ from others, and therefore wrote in a manner such that readers could take him as claiming christ as equal to God. That's not unique to Paul though.

The other problem is the idea of blood sacrifice in some way necessary for fellowship with God. But that's not unique to Paul either.

My recommendation therefore would be: If you find life and truth in Jesus and in the words he spoke from the Father, then acknowledge God the Father and follow Jesus and don't call yourself a Christian. That's my approach.



[edit on 3-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   

6. Proceeds to then go around killing everyone who doesn't convert to their religion? Check.
7. Is not persecuted, but instead does the persecution. Check.


No denomination goes around killing people if they don't convert now a days. You have to keep in mind when the Roman Catholic Church did that it was to 'save souls from heresy' there was no separation from church and state either in the dark ages/middle ages. They did it to save people from eternal damnation. There was no free speech etc. What the Roman Catholic Church said was true it was. Granted it wasn't the right way to defend their faith but you have to keep it in context.

Christians are persecuted in the world. Look at China and counties where Christians are the minorities. China beats and imprisons Christians. Though it just strengthens the followers resolve.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Paul VS Judaizers or Pthena to Neo-Yahwists



(disclaimer: This is merely a temporary logical construct, to collapse after use)

Hierarchy of Being, One God (male/female)
in whom we live and breathe and have our being.
|
El Shaddai - God Almighty or God of fruitfulness
Clan god of Abraham

El Elyon - God Most High
God of Melchizedek
|
YHWH - Clan god of Israel
Mosaic Law Giver

Many people, orthodox, heterodox, and heretic have constructed hierarchies of god. This one serves merely to illustrate Paul's understanding and why he opposed Judaizers.

First things first. 'Paul didn't know Jesus as a man, did not hear anything from the prophet himself in the flesh.' That is true, but then neither have I. Have you? Has anyone in the last centuries? The historic Jesus is beyond us. 'Paul didn't go around quoting Jesus the way his disciples did.' True again, but none of the Gospels had been written yet. I can't quote the things Jesus said in his lifetime without using the Gospels, can you? The words of Jesus existed as memorized sayings in the minds of his followers, the writing down of which was once or twice removed from the actual witnesses. Oh, you may say, why didn't Paul sit at the feet of the disciples and learn all he could? It's quite obvious that that was prevented by quite highly charged mutual hostility; although Peter does seem to have spent some time (15 days) with Paul in Jerusalem.

Imagine, if you will, the psychic shock to Saul the zealous Pharisee when he was confronted in vision of the risen Christ that he was seriously in error and had nothing of value to teach any one, and then to be told he's to go teach the Gentiles! Where would you turn? What would you do? It may shock you to know that revelations of the living Christ are short, sweet, and to the point. He doesn't hand out written systematic theologies. Each recipient of such a vision is left with their own resources and capacities to work out meaning; some times profound, some times lame.

What Paul had was a pharisaic knowledge of the law, and the need to fit the risen Christ in so as to have something to teach Gentiles. He was probably somewhat familiar with what was being taught to God fearing Gentiles in the synagogues, and found that somewhat lacking. Even Jesus didn't seem to find that quite adequate.


MT 23:15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Some, not all neo-Yahwists teach that YHWH the clan-god of Israel, the law giver is the One true God, the Creator. In order for a Gentile to experience full fellowship, there must be an adoption into the clan and submission to the clan law. This sort of teaching was unacceptable to Paul and unacceptable to me.

Paul's approach was to take the covenant with Abraham as absolute, in that all nations would be blessed through his seed(Christ) and the law that came 430 yrs later had no relevance to Gentiles. (Gal. 3) He then settled on a teaching of mystical union by which the death and resurrection of Christ is an event which any one, Jew, Gentile, male, female, slave, or free can participate through baptism. "Jesus died, I died in him; Jesus ascended to heaven, so did I in him. Now we in the flesh have the life of Christ through the spirit. The church on earth therefore is the body of Christ and the head, Christ is in heaven, head and body form one, sharing the same spirit"


1CO 8:4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

By calling Jesus Lord he places him on a par with YHWH the Law giver, either as the same, or as replacement of the angel with Christ in the same position, serving the same function. Jesus then has authority to relax the requirements of the law for Israelites. But God the Father is still above.

This is my summary of Paul's teaching. I find nothing in it to get freaked out about. Oh, but you may say, what about all that human blood sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, didn't Paul get that from Pagan practices and corrupt everything thereby? Not at all. He got it straight from the scriptures:


1CO 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

It was not his teaching at all, if it had been, he would have tried to explain it logically, as it is he was merely repeating what somebody else was teaching. Oh, but you may say, doesn't that make him a liar since he claimed to not get anything from others? Sure it does. I lie sometimes too, don't you?

(to be continued)



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
(continuation)

I highly recommend the reading and study of the book called Hebrews. This was written by a Diaspora Israelite to Diaspora Israelites, without influence of Paul. When I read it I am struck with profound envy of Israel. In this sermon the writer speaks of the Law, moral and ritual as if it were all a prophecy foreshadowing the truth to be, indeed all ready revealed. It's especially worth noting that the temple and the whole earthly Jerusalem experiment is completely ignored. It's the moving tent that has significance, earthly Jerusalem and stone temple none at all. He places Jesus above the angel who passed on the Law, Moses being the intercessor for his time between the angel YHWH and the people. Jesus is greater than Moses, he's right up there with Melchizedek, as priest/king intercessor for the people. The tent ritual is fulfilled in the one sacrifice and fades away. The moral law is written on the heart in the New Covenant, thus the stone and parchment fade away. As for dwelling on this earth, Abraham the wandering alien is the example to follow. Not at all following those who seek to grab territory or disposes any body.

In my opinion Hebrews beats out Paul for explaining Christianity, but alas I am not an Israelite, I must look to Paul for some hope or knowledge of God which goes beyond my native Pagan understanding. I for one thank God and Jesus for the ministry of Paul.

It seems completely inappropriate to me to attempt to join the clan of Israel. Every time I creep up close, as if to slip in, there stands the angel of YHWH blocking the way with a flaming sword. There's a separation; whether to protect the children of the clan from me or to protect me from the humiliation of unfitness I don't know. Maybe I have Moabite blood unknown to me?


[edit on 14-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   
I am the one who Olive oil is quoting and talking about.

I will go down the list and put more detail into it, since Olive Oil is basically quoting a highlight.

Here goes.



1. Religion in the name of Christ? Check.


Christianity




2. Brought about by someone who comes after Jesus, while Jesus warns that which comes after him has nothing for him(Paul)? Check.




John 14

29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.


Paul of course came after Jesus, and his writings make up nearly 50% of the new testament, more than Jesus himself. Which in itself is not so bad, but the fact that he constantly contridicts Jesus on very important principles is. That will be laid out.

While some may say that it's great that "Jesus choose Paul", it completely ignores that Paul contridicts Jesus, and does things which Jesus directly says not to do.



3. That man appeals to the political powers of this world? Check.


Paul of course has a book named after the political powers of the time. He appeals that all governments are not evil, but are of god - all of them(romans 13). This is of course KEY in establishing the anti-christ 1 world government stuff.

Jesus does not submit to the powers of earth, he turns such things down. He just doesn't fight back because he realizes if he does then he would be breaking the commandments. It is the fact that Jesus does not just submit to those powers and speaks against them that he is killed in the first place.

It's not submission to worldly authority as Paul says, but is instead merely a result of keeping the way and not committing sin.



4. Marriage of church and state as a result? Check.


Holy Roman Empire... I am shocked that anyone can even suggest this one isn't true. Again, Roman empire and the book of Romans. Coincidence? No.



5. Imbeded with "Pagan/Mystery Religion"? Check.


This one is a topic in itself. The entire Christian religion itself is Pagan. I always get a kick of Pagans who dislike Christianity and vice versa. All your ceremonies, traditions and so forth are all of Pagan origin. Christianity basically turns Jesus into the "sun" and is nothing but sun worship.

There is some understanding in the Pagan religion and so forth. However, it is the understanding of men, not of the father and the way of the tree of life. Also, so riddled in symbolism that it is mostly idol worship among the masses.



6. killing everyone who doesn't convert to their religion? Check.
7. Is not persecuted, but instead does the persecution. Check.
8. Has built it's following throw death and destruction and sin? Check.


The dark ages are pretty well documented, as are the crusades and so forth. These people did honestly believe they were doing the good and right things, but they simply didn't understand unfortunately.

Christianity certainly isn't the only guilty part of this in the world, nor was it anything new. However, this is certainly not the way of Jesus or the tree of life etc.

But the fact remains. Christianity got all it's power and influence through this manner and got it's power through the path/way of death and destruction. They did not try to give people understanding really, in fact the bible itself was reserved to only the scribes/pharisees of Christianity, and the average man was not even allowed to see the words of Jesus, much less understand them as even if they did happen to come across the book itself, they were certainly not educated in the language of the bible.

Jesus scolds the Pharisees for trying to get religious converts. Saying they will travel the seas for a single convert, to turn him into a child of hell. Of importance in this is notice - they carried the same scripture that Jesus speaks of, came from the same religion of Jesus, and yet still they were converting them into an "anti-christ" religion. How can that be?

What is it that Jesus does differently? He gives understanding and wisdom. As required in order for someone to keep the commandments. If someone lacks the understanding itself, then they will not keep the commandments.



Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.


To simply get someone to follow the scriptures, take the scriptures as authority and to follow the traditions of the religion was in the time of Jesus to turn that person into a "child of hell". Because they will be blinded to the understanding itself. Understanding which is btw available through the father and doesn't need the scripture itself to be found. How do you think the people who wrote the scriptures found it?

Thus why Jesus told people - they were the authority, not the scribes. But Paul of course teaches the opposite. That all things are the authority of the father - except YOU. And because YOU are not of the authority of the father, you must submit to it. I will speak on this at the end, when I stick up for Paul.



Matthew 7

28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.


Matthew 7 is btw nearly a direct chapter to the Christian Church, even though he was obviously talking about the Pharisees of the time.



9. Won't be happy until it's the 1 world religion? Check.


This is sad but true. Christianity has in fact worked towards this goal, and their entire vision of "the end" and when Jesus comes is to say that Christianity will be the 1 world religion and all will follow it - because only they will be left.

However, there is a difference between 1 world religion of "Christ", and 1 world which has the understanding of it(holy spirit), which they will find out.



10. Promotes ignorance and deception? Check.


Another sad but true. Christianity is in itself full of "replacements". Replacements are the reason why idolism is frowned upon. Because the idols themselves end up becoming the replacement for what they are supposed to symbolize, and the understanding behind the idol will be blinded to the masses.

Just like the Pharisees of the time of Jesus, that would get the converts, Christianity has done the same.

In fact, the truth on the entire subject is this. The pharisees had control of Judaism when Jesus was born. They conspired and killed him in order to maintain that power, falsely accusing him of Blasphemy, when all he ever did was quote Psalm 82 to them. They first tried to get him to join them and become the political king they wanted(to be a nation, where they turn away god in 2sam2). And since he wouldn't go along and instead chose the will of the father - they killed him.

Then, since his words and such had gotten attention, they took up the symbolisms and sayings, along with their previous atrocities with what is now the "OT", they proceeded to take over those people in the same exact manner they did so with Judaism, blind them with idols and so forth. And so to do this, Saul the Pharisee becomes Paul the apostle. Who goes around selling the "name" of Jesus, while teaching another path. Paul is the biggest contributor in the bible, but I think he quotes Jesus like 1 time or in that neighborhood. Yet, he will invoke the name of Jesus over and over.

This is what a politician does. A politician is a sorcerer. They use words and symbols in order to "cast a spell" on people in order to gain power over them. The symbolisms(like the cross) get their power because people will think that the person carrying that symbolism is one of them. Just look at what GWB did and how many people voted for him because he was a Christian. The cross(symbolism) brought him the greatest power in the world. This is a wolf in sheeps clothing(symbolisms and to claim to be something).

See the same thing in politics, and it was in politics that I learned to recognize it. Got your flag pin? Oh, if you don't have your flag pin, then you aren't one of us. Why do you think you see the flag and such on the news over and over? Because it is to suggest that because it has he symbolism and praises that, then they are automatically doing what is the interest of that. They aren't, and neither was Paul.

It is nothing for them to change symbolisms and so forth, why do they care what symbol gives them the power? How did the "gods of old" lose their power? Because people quit believing in them, thus the symbolisms attached to them went away, and those who seek power just changed the idols.

That is what Paul does. Praises Jesus the idol, but then teaches that which is against it. People accept Paul because they see - well he talks so good about Jesus and such, he must be about Jesus. Realize, that this is how manipulation works in all things where there is corruption.

The only thing that can break that spell is understanding. Which is what Jesus tries to give, and is why he was killed. Take the entire thing with moses and the sorcerers. His snake(wisdom/understanding) eats the other snakes. Their "spells" have no effect on him etc.

Such is the true magic of this world, if one is able to see it. Most aren't obviously. But those with understanding can't be blinded by such magic, they "can't be plucked from the fathers hand".

continued. I haven't made the complete case for Paul in the other threads because it would have been off topic. Up next, the contridictions of Paul and Jesus, and how Paul teaches a seperate path.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 

Paul was accepted by the Jerusalem council...that's good enough for me.

I have often wondered what the Roman Catholic Church would have been like if it had actually followed the advise of Paul in his letter to the Romans.




posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Since I have said that Paul teaches that which is against the way of Jesus and the tree of life, it is time to back that up. Keep in mind, these are not just little things, these things are contradictions on the most basic things, what I call "day 1 stuff" from the point of gaining the understanding of the father. IE: So important, that it was among the first things learned.

These are things which misplace authority. Which is again, what the Pharisees wanted to do. As Jesus would say, the Pharisees sit in the seat of moses(wisdom and understanding). To replace the authority of god, and to be god over the earth.

Jesus:



Matthew 23

1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.


11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.



Ok, I quoted a good bit of Jesus there. Notice that what I've been talking about is all there together, in context. The Pharisees sit in the seat of moses, the difference in who to recognize authority(that I bolded), and then at the end, a proselyte = religious convert. He continues on down with a list of errors/wrongs of the pharisees.

All these things Christianity is also guilty of. Where does it come from? Paul. Paul enables these things. Paul contradicts Jesus on this authority.

Paul:



1 Corinthians 4

14I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

15For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

16Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.


17For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

18Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

19But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

20For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.



Ahh, the power Paul craves is clear.

Notice, How many teachers does Jesus speak of? ONE. Rabbi = teacher if you didn't know. How many does Paul say their are? 10,000?

Be followers of him? And Christians certainly are. The doctrine of Paul always trumps that of Jesus. Why? Even on this specific topic alone, Christians will disagree with Jesus and say he is of Satan. How dare he speak ill of these?

How many masters can you have?

Call no man your father? Except Paul? And of course, "father" is a word commonly thrown around among the church now isn't it. Or atleast some other title. A few are right in this manner in calling them brother.

These are serious things. Jesus certainly never ever told anyone to call him father. He said the father is much greater than he is and so on.

What is Paul doing there? He is exalting himself. Which is seen as the least in the kingdom of heaven according to Jesus.

There are other examples of Paul doing this, but I'll just keep it short and show 1 example.

But it doesn't stop there. This is just where the authority of the church comes from, and why it is false and not of the way of Jesus. What is done with that authority also matters. What are their fruits?

Paul on the law:



Romans 10

2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above


7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


According to Paul, all one needs to do is believe Jesus was raised from the dead, and you are saved. This is a gross manipulation on what Jesus said and did.

Jesus on the law:



Matthew 5

16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.



First, he is not the end of the law, he is merely to fulfill it. He tells you directly, but still people instead accept what Paul says is true.

He tells you that all you need to do is believe he was raised from the dead, but Jesus says in no case, can someone exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is that going to happen. Paul even goes so far as to say you can't be righteous at all, only Jesus could is the reason for this.

But in John 14, Jesus says that those who believe will keep the commandments, and that those who believe are capable of doing even greater things than he did. Which I guess according to Paul means except be righteous.

Jesus gives the understanding needed in order to keep the commandments, as I pointed out is needed in Psalm 111:10. He says to keep the commandments and so forth, and that it is the only way to get into heaven etc. But this is all changed by Paul into being about a ritual sacrifice, where the truth is killed so that the lie may live. And ALL those who find salvation in the blood of Jesus over the understanding are living in the lie, supporting the lie and are giving the lie power.

Further proof is found in the rich man who approaches Jesus. Jesus certainly says nothing even close to what Paul says when the rich man asks Jesus. The rich man asks the exact question, what do I need for eternal life(to eat of the tree of life, which requires keeping the way of the tree of life, which is why people are put on earth to begin with in Genesis). Jesus reply: Keep the commandments. Rich man: I have. Jesus: You have not, give your riches to the poor. Rich man: walks away saddened because he wouldn't give them up.



1 John 2

3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.


I can go on if you would like, there is plenty more. Such as god of the dead and life as Paul says, vs Jesus saying he is not god of the dead, but only of life etc. These are the big things because they misplace authority and teach men things contrary to the path.

Up next I'll defend Paul a bit. Think it's only fair.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
In defense of Paul.

We can not really accuse Paul the person. Many of the things mentioned are only things which he has enabled, and are not all things he himself is guilty of.

Furthermore, these were all mostly letters. While he did show a desire for power and teaches falsely, all we really know here are the letters. It's entirely possible that they were written as he himself was learning, that he didn't quite understand things and was only starting to open his mind. These letters could have been 1 side of a debate between 2 people, in which they are simply exchanging ideas in an attempt to understand better themselves.

No doubt these were not all the letters he wrote, and he could have written others after that would have pointed out his previous mistakes. Is there any of us who have once said something we thought was true, but ended up not being true? Or is there any of us here who have not said things which were taken in the wrong manner?

Maybe he was simply deceived himself, and had the best intentions. Surely wouldn't be the first time.

I myself would be mortified if someone were to take the words I write and then pass them off at a later point as "word of god". And sure, I can say right here and now that any such an event would be false, but then I am not the one who will decide which of my writings will be taken to begin with am I? Would it be fair to blame me or you for the things we write if are selectively chosen by others and passed off as the word of god? I don't think so. We are only responsible for our own actions, not the actions of others.

But what can't be ignored is what has been selected and what is attributed to Paul, and what they say. While I am in no position to judge Paul the person, we can see if what they say is true or not, and so forth. We can't ignore the results of those selected texts, what they do, or what they enabled.

And so I think it is appropriate to point out these things and to show people them. I know that if someone did that kind of stuff with my writings, I would hope and want someone to please please please come along and fix my mistakes, to show people my errors and so forth. I have no reason to think Paul would have been any different.

Also, I don't think I would exactly remove Paul from the bible or anything. It is a great lesson and example of what not to do, and how easily someone can do the wrong things with seemingly good intentions. It should just be understood for what it is, rather than being forced down peoples throats as the word of god, which is the exact reason the politics of the day choose those writings.

Such can't be ignored. In order to find the truth, one must separate that which is false from it. And if one has found the truth and has understanding, then that is exactly what they will do. I think of Paul as more of a test than anything.

It has a purpose as well. Paul is for those who do not understand - the gentiles. Because they do not understand, they are subjected to such things. They are not righteous, don't keep the commandments and so forth. Nations and such that Paul appeals to are a thing of this world, not of the father. They exist because of the evil in this world. No need for them among those who would keep the way, but you see that Paul is not talking about those who keep the way.

Still, he doesn't have the understanding of Jesus, and thus doesn't really help anyone either in that regard, giving many replacements and so forth.

Basically, all things happen for a reason, and the only reason why such was allowed to and has happened in the first place is because the people didn't understand, and honestly didn't seem to care to understand either. Because all one really has to do is seek. That, or they simple kept their mouth shut and rolled their eyes and went about their business, which is fine. The grace of Jesus is that it wasn't fine for him.

Here to learn good and evil, should end up as clear as hot or cold water before it's over.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
I think I just had to make one more try at defending Paul before letting him go. I've got a lot in common with him, as if by defending him I also defend myself. His Christocentric teaching can become an idol just like anything else can. I'm sure that wasn't his intent, but it did happen.

He wasn't the smartest guy. I've already determined that the author of Hebrews had a broader understanding than Paul. The person who wrote John and 1 John had a better approach. He heard from a least one of the witnesses of the teaching of Jesus and wrote them down so that the words of Jesus could speak for themselves. And Jesus taught the Father without interjecting an intermediary. The Spirit of the Father teaches of the Father and the Son, in a way that leads to oneness of all the sons.

Some of Paul's concepts have value as a foreshadow in much the way the law was a foreshadow according to Hebrews. It seems to be time to move on.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


I'm not sure if I am in agreement with Hebrews either. I do not believe in the blood sacrifice of Jesus and that ritual at all. Such things are contradictory to what the father taught me.

I have been accused of cherry picking the bible here. That is not true at all. I do not choose which books of the bible to keep and which ones to not keep. I simply know which things are true and of the father, and with that also comes the ability to know what is not.

Hebrews teaches the sacrifice ritual. Which is not supported at all by Jesus. But, it's kind of odd in a way, because with the correct understanding it's not about blood sacrifice, but instead Jesus putting other people above his own life. So in this way, he does "sacrifice" himself and such.

Take someone who is in the military. People will say - that man gave his life for others. That man sacrificed himself for others etc. Well, that man dieing and giving up his life was not the point behind what he did, it was a consequence. Not that I in anyway agree with war and such, but this is an example of "sacrifice" and "laying down their own lives for others", but their reason was other than the death itself.

So, when someone mentions the sacrifice or Jesus laying down his life, I am a bit torn. If that person is talking about a blood sacrifice ritual where they believe because of the ritual itself they are saved, then I will say such is anti-christ, and it is. But if that person means that Jesus did what he did in order to help people and give them understanding, and he did so even though he knew he would be killed for it, but did it anyway and "laid down his life for others" in this manner, then I can agree with that. Such is the grace of Jesus.

We certainly don't think of people who die "for our freedoms" of ritual sacrifices do we? We certainly don't think it was their deaths that were their purpose, or that their deaths are what did what they did. So why do we treat Jesus in this manner?

Take John 3:16. Which is quoted often when someone is "saved" by the church, which is in the manner Paul teaches - believe he was resurrected. What does it mean "to believe" in Jesus? In the manner Christians teach, I have to disagree because they simply believe in the idol. But if you mean in the manner Jesus speaks of, where those who believe and love him will follow and keep the commandments, then yes I will say to believe in him will very much save you.

The laws were given, but the problem is people didn't really understand and so they didn't keep them, and they could be put under a spell and lead down the wrong path.

The only way to rectify this problem was Jesus. Jesus in his example and teachings gives people the understanding needed to keep the commandments properly. In doing so, he shows people what is the law of god, and what is not the law of god. And so when people truly believe in him, then they will keep the commandments just as Jesus did, and by that they will be saved.

The bottom line is you have to keep the commandments, which are the way of the tree of life. Man was quarantined on earth in Genesis because they would not keep the way of the tree of life. In order to have eternal life Jesus speaks of, you have to be able to eat of the tree of life as talked about in Genesis. So the problem is not keeping the way of the tree of life, also the way Jesus talks about he represents in John 14:6.

So, if someone follows the laws properly, they could have done this before Jesus. But with all the manipulation and such, people were blinded by the Pharisees as Jesus points out. And so Jesus gives the understanding etc. All this understanding and importance behind it is hidden/expelled with the blood sacrifice.

The significance of Jesus being risen is not as Paul says, that which will save people. The significance of it is that it shows that Jesus was sin free, and thus the true way and example to follow. It proves that if you also keep and follow in his way, that you too can gain and get what he does.

Jesus doesn't even pay the penalty for sins. He only dies the physical death as do all men. If he were to have paid the penalty for sins, then he would have not been risen - because that is the penalty for sins, and the resurrection is to show that this was not true of him, that he was sin free.

Jesus comes not for the righteous, but to bring sinners to repentance. This literally means to fix/change your mistakes. The understanding and example of Jesus is the template needed by them to do this, Just as the holy spirit is able to forgive sin by giving men the understanding needed to to fix their mistakes(repent for their sins).

But according to Paul and the church, to repent for your sins is to simply accept Jesus died on the cross for you, and that you need only believe he was risen. This is a false hood and is done to blind people from the true meaning/reasons.

Thus, John 3:16. Jesus is given because it was the only way for people to gain the understanding needed to follow the commandments. And whosoever believes in Jesus, will keep the commandments and the way of the tree of life, and it is to them that will once again be able to eat from the tree of life, to have eternal life.

People get angry and mad at me for saying these things. They do not like for me to say it, because to keep the commandments is much harder than to just believe Jesus was risen from the dead and that you are saved in his sacrifice. But I speak of the narrow path and the way of the tree of life. If you notice carefully, I never in anyway suggest to people they don't have to keep the commandments. The broad gate is the one that is easy to enter, as most do. I speak of the narrow gate for all those who can hear the understanding.


[edit on 1/15/2010 by badmedia]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia


I'm not sure if I am in agreement with Hebrews either. I do not believe in the blood sacrifice of Jesus and that ritual at all. Such things are contradictory to what the father taught me.

I have been accused of cherry picking the bible here. That is not true at all. I do not choose which books of the bible to keep and which ones to not keep. I simply know which things are true and of the father, and with that also comes the ability to know what is not.

Hebrews teaches the sacrifice ritual. Which is not supported at all by Jesus. But, it's kind of odd in a way, because with the correct understanding it's not about blood sacrifice, but instead Jesus putting other people above his own life. So in this way, he does "sacrifice" himself and such.

One of the main points of Hebrews is that all that blood sacrifice commanded in Exodus, Leviticus was just a shadow. Yes, the blood sacrifice talk even is just a shadow. The giving himself for others is the truer meaning. Jesus could have fought for an earthly throne and kingdom, but he didn't. He could see that a kingdom of the spirit and of the future was of much better value. It's spirit and truth the Father looks for.

The textual critics of Hebrews figure that it was written to be a sermon, as if the synagogue leader were in a different city. The sermon then would be read to the congregation on a Sabbath and then put away. The hearers were then to move on in living as aliens looking forward to better things to come, with the law written on their hearts.

We live now in a time when blood sacrifice is totally obsolete. We should have been long past that kind of thinking. Nothing that is written is harmful in itself, just as any idol is nothing in itself. The modern day error of Christians is the idea that a book is the word of God. It's a witness of how God communicated in the past. But now it's now, and the Father seeks those who worship in spirit and in truth.

Part of Hebrews is the example of those who could have gone back but chose to keep going forward.



But according to Paul and the church, to repent for your sins is to simply accept Jesus died on the cross for you, and that you need only believe he was risen. This is a false hood and is done to blind people from the true meaning/reasons.

The church really should have moved past this. Stuck in orthodoxy is not moving forward. I can't imagine all Christians getting mad at you. Some one could get mad if they had all their hope and ambition on this life, and wanted to live selfishly, and think I'll have it all now, and I'm still saved because of someone else paying the price for my sins. Surely there are Christians who know that's foolish man with house on sand talk!



[edit on 16-1-2010 by pthena]





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join