Saul, Adherent of Christ or Anti Christ?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
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!


Only quoting this paragraph for space.

I have quoted Matthew 7 many times, and the general response is oh you can't just go around doing whatever etc, but you still have to believe in the blood sacrifice.

The reason given for this is that nobody is able to be sin free. That it is impossible for people to be sin free, righteous and so forth as Jesus was.

But this is contradictory to what Jesus said, and is of Paul. Jesus says those who believe will do even greater things than he does etc. But when I start quoting John 14 outside verse only half of verse 6, it's basically ignored. Paul trumps it.

In another thread, I was seriously just accused by a Christian for trying to "imitate Jesus".

Same person quoted 1 John 2 a few weeks ago to me.



1 John 2

1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


As the reason for the blood sacrifice. But then got upset when I pointed out the 2 verses that followed.



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.


Christianity is the anti-Christ religion that was warned of. That is actually what the list was about that the OP quoted. This is not to say all Christians are by default anti-christ. They are really just poor in spirit mostly and so forth. Many people still find the way in spite of it as well etc. But what the general mainstream Christian religion is and always has been - that is anti-christ.

All ones needs to do is take a list of things said about the anti-christ religion, and test Christianity against it with honesty. They will find that it meets the points listed. Most people simply do not notice because they expect it all to start after they are born and such, and do not realize that it was there before Jesus, and continued on after and started in his name after Jesus, not after their birth.

Wish it wasn't so, but it is.



[edit on 1/16/2010 by badmedia]




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia


Christianity is the anti-Christ religion that was warned of. That is actually what the list was about that the OP quoted. This is not to say all Christians are by default anti-christ. They are really just poor in spirit mostly and so forth. Many people still find the way in spite of it as well etc. But what the general mainstream Christian religion is and always has been - that is anti-christ.

All ones needs to do is take a list of things said about the anti-christ religion, and test Christianity against it with honesty. They will find that it meets the points listed. Most people simply do not notice because they expect it all to start after they are born and such, and do not realize that it was there before Jesus, and continued on after and started in his name after Jesus, not after their birth.

Wish it wasn't so, but it is.

Sadly, that's a conclusion I reached myself some years ago.


MT 18:5 "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

MT 18:7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

MT 18:10 "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

Sin is falling short of full realization. Causing to sin is setting up barriers or stumbling blocks. Christian history: Dark Age Papacy had a mass system by which Christ was constantly being crucified again and again for the forgiveness of sins. Indulgences were sold for release from purgatory and entry into heaven. The reformation restored the once for all sacrifice of Christ for forgiveness of sins, an improvement, but not far enough.

For a brief shining moment in the 1970s a movement called Liberation Theology arose, in which Christians sought to do the actual work of Christ mentioned in Isaiah 61. It was crushed in El Salvador by US special forces, CIA, and US trained 'counter insurgency' through assassination of Bishop, priests, and nuns with permission of the Vatican. The crushing of Liberation Theology was celebrated in the CIA, Pentagon, and the Vatican. American Protestant Denominations which were in favor pulled back, Fundamentalism surged in numbers and political power.

On 25 November 1981, Pope John Paul II named Ratzinger(current Pope) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the Holy Office, the historical Inquisition. In 1984 he wrote "'INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE "THEOLOGY OF LIBERATION" '. A small quote:


www.vatican.va...
The meeting, then of the aspiration for liberation and the theologies of liberation is not one of mere chance. The significance of the encounter between the two can be understood only in light of the specific message of Revelation, authentically interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church.

So, to feed the poor, or to stand in solidarity as one with oppressed people, without the permission of the church is heresy. Evidently punishable by death.

The 'Inquisitions' objection is that helping people in a human manner blurs the important Christian teachings of sin and redemption from sin. It's quite easy to find out what Jesus thinks of such 'important Christian teachings' that withhold aid from people in need for the sake of religious purity. It's called human sacrifice. How pure is that? Human sacrifice for the sake of a doctrine of human sacrifice.



1JN 3:7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

I forgot how full of the paradox 1 John was. Simply repeating "he died for me" is sorcery like the Egyptian Book of the Dead 'after you die simply tell the judge "some one else paid my fee" ' That's completely nonsense that earns nothing good.

Plain and simple if you don't live like Jesus you are not born of God. Christians must redeem their teachings with their lives. If their lives don't redeem their teachings, then their teachings will perish with them and have no power to save.

My advice to Christians not up to the task of the paradox then, is to convert to Islam. Allah forgives whoever He wants to, without ceremonial gymnastics or Books of the Dead.


[edit on 16-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil

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.



Saul, the Anti-Christ? Yes, I suppose he was.

Jesus was a Jew. He was circumcised; urged his followers to follow Judaic law to the letter; told them not to indulge in vain repetitions; instructed them not to eat with Gentiles; urged them to castrate themselves; and urged them not to go to church.

Saul (Paul) took this sect and created a religion where his followers rejected circumcision; rejected Judaic law completely; used rosary beads and repetitions; ate with anyone; mocked castration; and went to church to give their donations to the increasingly fat 'Christian' Church.


So yes, the Church of Saul (Simple Judaism or Christianity) is the complete antitheses of the Church of Jesus (the Nazarene Galileans).

Does that mean Saul was an Antichrist? Well yes, except he used the image of Jesus as the primary icon of his new Church, a Church that bore no relationship whatsoever to the Church of its nominative leader. That is why the Church of Jesus called Saul the LIAR.


If you follow the Church of Saul (Christianity), you are deliberately kicking Jesus where it really hurts.





.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Paul was just a good Christian, trying to do what he believed to be right but I don’t think for one moment, that he would have expected his personal writings, to make up 50% of Christianity and the New Testament.

For me personally, the only word of God in the bible, is what the prophets heard the Lord/God speak and wrote it down in the Old testament and what Jesus speaks, in the New testament. Everything else, may be termed the “inspired word of God”, but it is not Gods actual words.

I think some advice that Paul gives Christians is great but at the end of the day, that is just the same as asking a Christian friend what you think is the right course of action in your life. It should only be used as a guide, in it’s proper place. IMO nothing else should take precedence, over the actual words the Lord/God spoke.


reply to post by badmedia
 




Originally posted by badmedia
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.


I’m slightly curious…and you may have posted about this topic on another thread.

Where and how does Jesus quote Psalm 82, in the New Testament?

I’m not suggesting your wrong or anything but if you could explain it, I would really appreciate it.


- JC



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Seems like a reasonable thing to say about Paul. He does say somethings that are good and so forth.

One of my favorite Paul quotes, and something I think is great advice to the point where I live by that principle is "Owe nothing to any man, but to love him".

Jesus and Psalms 82 can be found in John 10.

This is right after they call him the devil.


John 10

24Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.


38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

39Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,



And of course, Psalm 82 just for reference.



Psalm 82

1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.



[edit on 1/22/2010 by badmedia]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia


Jesus and Psalms 82 can be found in John 10.

This is right after they call him the devil.

Psalm 82 is very interesting. 'God' here is not called YHWH. The question is: Is the Father of all 'the Most High'? Is YHWH one of the mighty? Is your Father the same Father of Jesus? Is Jesus greater than YHWH, on equal footing with YHWH?

The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy because he seemed to claim equal footing with YHWH.

This is a crisis of identity that people go through.

I have myself accused YHWH of blasphemy. To me he is one of the mighty, and yet he demands exclusive worship of himself as if he were The Most High.

The unbelief and accusing of the Jews toward Jesus is similar to my unbelief and accusing of YHWH. They could see him and his deeds and hear his words. I can feel that YHWH still is. Yet I haven't resolved for myself, any relationship with YHWH that would free both of us from constantly accusing each other.

Jesus claimed he and the Father are One. YHWH also claims to be One. Eventually all will be One. Now there still is conflict.



6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Being children of the Most High makes the mighty ones gods. And yet they die like men. Jesus died as a man, will YHWH also.


MT 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Is YHWH in fact the Law? Living and active sharper than a sword? He almost seems to be that to me?

[edit on 22-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
Psalm 82 is very interesting. 'God' here is not called YHWH. The question is: Is the Father of all 'the Most High'? Is YHWH one of the mighty? Is your Father the same Father of Jesus? Is Jesus greater than YHWH, on equal footing with YHWH?

The Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy because he seemed to claim equal footing with YHWH.

I have myself accused YHWH of blasphemy. To me he is one of the mighty, and yet he demands exclusive worship of himself as if he were The Most High.


I don't know about the Yahweh stuff, it's out of my realm and is more suited for a historian or biblical expert. I generally just know the "way of the tree of life", and also things about the father and such as Jesus talked about. I don't know about history other than what men tell you, and if you ask 100 experts they all tell you different things.

But, Jesus is pretty clear that the father is much greater than he is, and never says anything about people worshiping him, but instead points people to the father when praise and such comes to him.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia


I don't know about the Yahweh stuff, it's out of my realm and is more suited for a historian or biblical expert. I generally just know the "way of the tree of life", and also things about the father and such as Jesus talked about. I don't know about history other than what men tell you, and if you ask 100 experts they all tell you different things.

The Law is all about YHWH. You have said following the commandments are the way of the tree of life. Surely you have read the law. What we have now as Torah is fairly close to what it was in the time of Jesus.


But, Jesus is pretty clear that the father is much greater than he is, and never says anything about people worshiping him, but instead points people to the father when praise and such comes to him.

Yes the Father is greater, outside of this world He already is One and at peace. In this world, which you have called quarantined, Jesus as son of the Father is one with the Father. You are right that Jesus didn't ask for worship. That's what I accuse YHWH of.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Not to derail or detract - but just to a point that is clear that all who have posted so far already know.

However, all that may post or read here may not. I can remember a time when I would be like, "Saul? Paul? What?"

Saul and Paul are both names for the same guy. Typcially he is called Paul after his conversion.

Not to be confused with King Saul - who was someone different.



[edit on 22-1-2010 by Frogs]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

I have myself accused YHWH of blasphemy. To me he is one of the mighty, and yet he demands exclusive worship of himself as if he were The Most High.
I found this book referenced by another book I am reading; The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion, by Thorkild Jacobsen. The author of the first book was getting into a big discussion on what Jacobsen was saying about how the concept of God had changed.

In the second half of the second millennium and into the first millenium a dark age closed down on Mesopotamia. The old framework within which to understand the workings of the cosmos survived, but it moved from the interplay of many divine wills to the wilful whim of a single despot. The major gods became national gods, identified with narrow national aspirations. There was a corresponding coarsening and barbarization of the idea of divinity, no new overreaching concepts arose, rather doubts and despair abounded. . .

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Jacobsen, it is a must-read to enter into the debate. This is like the textbook and I recommend it to anyone interested in the concept of divinity. (lots of cheap used copies on Amazon)



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
One thing must be said and it's just the modern hard truth:

Pauline epistles to the establishing and maintaining of Churches
have become the most important doctrines of the Bible in Christianity
to the degree that most though quoting Paul verbatim from memorization
know nothing of the Scriptures to which he referred and Oracles of GOD
nor have a correct knowledge of the Gospels of the Lord "Jesus" the Christ
much less as He said "If you know not the Earthy teaching of Moses
then how shall you understand the Heavenly teaching of the Son of Man?"

It is not so much that Paul willfully set out to 'hijack' the Biblical Epic but
many today sincerely believe themselves godly saved by blind faith in his
words in English versions from Greek only being twice removed from what
he was pointing to directly that's missed entirely as they explain it away using his words as though all that is done away and nailed to His cross...
they have gone so far as to cut off the "Old Testament" and then to read
into his letters as The Word of GOD gauging their own validity thereon!



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
That time period covers from the supposed exodus, right up to Assyrian deportation of Israel.


2KI 17:24 The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. They took over Samaria and lived in its towns. 25 When they first lived there, they did not worship the LORD; so he sent lions among them and they killed some of the people. 26 It was reported to the king of Assyria: "The people you deported and resettled in the towns of Samaria do not know what the god of that country requires. He has sent lions among them, which are killing them off, because the people do not know what he requires."

2KI 17:27 Then the king of Assyria gave this order: "Have one of the priests you took captive from Samaria go back to live there and teach the people what the god of the land requires." 28 So one of the priests who had been exiled from Samaria came to live in Bethel and taught them how to worship the LORD.

2KI 17:29 Nevertheless, each national group made its own gods in the several towns where they settled, and set them up in the shrines the people of Samaria had made at the high places. 30 The men from Babylon made Succoth Benoth, the men from Cuthah made Nergal, and the men from Hamath made Ashima; 31 the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire as sacrifices to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. 32 They worshiped the LORD, but they also appointed all sorts of their own people to officiate for them as priests in the shrines at the high places. 33 They worshiped the LORD, but they also served their own gods in accordance with the customs of the nations from which they had been brought.

I thought they had the Torah then, no mention though, just send a priest to teach in Bethel. The Book isn't found in the temple until Josiah's reign.


2KI 22:8 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. 9 Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: "Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the LORD and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple." 10 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, "Hilkiah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.

It's worth noting also that the Passover wasn't until then celebrated in Judah. This is a bit off topic though.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



Yes, you are absolutely right badmedia, Jesus is referring to Psalm 82 in John 10:34. For some reason, I thought you meant that Jesus had quoted the whole verse of Psalm 82, somewhere in the New Testament.


I know the common interpretation is that the Jews were not pleased with Jesus claiming to be God. Although, I have often wondered if the Jews were aware of the verse Psalm 82 or was it secrete knowledge only known to a few elite. I have also pondered whether or not the Jews were angry with Jesus talking about sacred knowledge (assuming they are aware of it) out in the open.

Anyway… this slightly of topic but thanks for clearing that up…


- JC


[edit on 22-1-2010 by Joecroft]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil

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.



Hmmmmm, I really can't see any reasonable argument for 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.


Eric

Edit: Ok, I clearly should have read the whole thread before responding. Although I don't agree with the arguments made for the above, I respect the time and effort that went into coming to those conclusions. Interesting thread. Thanks to the OP!

[edit on 22-1-2010 by EricD]

[edit on 22-1-2010 by EricD]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The reason so many accept Paul is because they identify with him as individuals. Like them, Paul did not meet or know Jesus, the man.

I have no interest in Paul or his published understanding of Jesus. I have no reason to trust the inclusion of Paul's writings in the NT. When I read these writings, I 'felt' uncomfortable. I have no reason to not trust my 'instincts', ie, the workings of my third eye and my third ear. Even if I take only one point made by a previous poster, Paul urges women to behave with less personal freedom of choice than men enjoy; this teaching is contrary to Jesus's teaching. Jesus said that beyond this life, gender is not an issue and all are created equal in the eyes of the Father.

Paul may have been a powermonger or a dillusional idiot, but he was not Jesus's chosen emissary to the world. And as such, an anti-christ.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Paul's Views on Women





Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities, c 2003, pp 38,39

What then was Paul's attitude toward women in the church? In his undisputed letters, Paul indicates that "in Christ there is no male and female" (Gal 3:28), that is, that men and women were completely equal in Christ. Moreover, as scholars of the late twentieth century began to emphasize, churches connected in some way with Paul appear to have had women leaders. Just in the greetings to the church of Rome , for example, Paul mentions several women who worked with him as Christian missionaries (Rom. 16:3, 6, 12), another who was the patron of the church meeting in her home (16:3), one other, a woman named Phoebe, who was a deacon of the church of Cenchrea (16:1), and most striking of all, yet another woman, Junia, whom Paul describes as "foremost among the apostles" (16:7).

Paul, and his churches, may have been more open to women and their leadership roles than people have traditionally thought and far more than Tertullian thought. No wonder that members of Paul's churches (primarily women members?) told stories about the adventures of his female companions like Thecla. And no wonder that men in the churches eventually decided to clamp down, forging documents in Paul's name condemning the practice of having women speak in church (1 Timothy), inserting passages into Paul's authentic letters urging women to be silent (1 Cor. 14:34-35), calling church councils to condemn an elder of a Pauline church who had dared collect narratives of Paul's woman disciple Thecla and pass them off as authentically Pauline.

It would sure help the debate if Paul wasn't blamed for forged teachings!



[edit on 23-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


I was just thinking about Paul and Peter the other day, so this is a pretty timely thread for me.

I was actually thinking that reading about Paul and Peter and their ministries are good lessons for today. People just really need to take a good look at what is being shown to us by their stories.

First of all, the Catholic religion and their offshoots should realize that Peter was sent to speak to the Jews, NOT the gentiles. Paul was sent to the gentiles. Since Peter was sent to speak to the Jews, he would have spent most of his time in areas where the Jews were located, NOT IN ROME.

Jesus and Peter's interactions also served to show that Peter was not infallible; Peter recognized Jesus to be the messiah, but he still denied Jesus,
Jesus forgave Peter, though, showing us that even when we do wrong, we can still be forgiven.

Paul, who was well versed in the Mosaic laws, by virtue of being a Pharisee who persecuted the followers of Jesus, was the perfect person for Jesus to pick to send to the Gentiles.

Jesus always spoke out against the Pharisees and scribes. Saul/Paul was one of the most rabid persecutors of the followers of Jesus at that time, apparently well known amongst the population as being such.

By showing Himself to Saul/Paul, He proved that even the most hardened person can have a change of heart. Jesus even sent a gentile to Paul to heal him of the blindness, and what an righteous affliction to have sent on Saul/Paul in the first place! BLINDNESS!

And the fact that a gentile was sent to heal him of his blindness was another indication of Jesus' showing us that things were going to change even further, because Paul, as a Pharisee, would not have even come close to a gentile.

Of course, in His ministry, Jesus had contact with people that the religious Jews of the day spoke out against. Jesus shows us with this, that to follow Him, everything about us has to change, that we have to totally change our way of thinking.

Paul did not become a follower of Jesus to obtain power. He already HAD the most power he could have had by being a part of the ruling class; the Pharisees and scribes were the educated people of the day. He actually had to GIVE UP any power he had.

The fact that Paul would have been a very well educated person made him the perfect person to send to Rome and Greece where the educated discussed philosophy. His background as a Pharisee would have made him an amazing example of how Jesus can change hearts totally. His education would have made him able to discuss and dispute what other learned people of the day were saying. He could meet them on their own level, something Peter could have never done.

PAUL GAVE UP EVERYTHING to follow Jesus, and bring others to Jesus as well.

As far as Paul giving the message that women were less than men, I don't agree. He made it clear that some might want to get married, and some might not. He stated that just because he did not feel the need to be married, that there was nothing wrong with being married, and for some, it would definitely be the best way to live, if it kept them from sinning by fornicating.

His comments about how women in general should behave, had a biblical basis, and he made comments about how men should behave as well. The bible basically lets us know that God is the head, followed by man, then woman, but that doesn't mean that women are considered less than man. The Bible makes it clear that man is to respect woman; his role as head or leader of household does not give him the authority to browbeat woman, but in fact holds him to a higher standard of treating her as he, himself, would want to be treated.

Paul went out of his way to let new followers of Jesus know that he was no better than any other person that was teaching the same message.

THAT is a message for the Catholic church and their offshoots; Paul rebuked Peter, and pointed out that each one of them were working toward the same goal, the fact that not Peter, or Paul or other teachers were to be held in higher esteem than any other, because it wasn't they who people should be following, but only the message of Jesus that they were teaching.

I, personally, love Paul's teachings, and I feel that, if people would take the time to really read them while letting their preconceived notions go, (as Paul himself had to do) they would see the truth of the matter.

It's ironic to me that Paul has received such an undeserved reputation regarding his supposed hatred for women, after all, Paul wrote one of the most beautiful parts of the Bible that is often used as a reading during marriage ceremonies, 1 Corinthians, vs 1-13.




1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.


So, indeed, Paul is a follower of Jesus Christ, and most definitely is NOT an anti-christ, in my opinion.

God Bless

sezsue

[edit on 23-1-2010 by sezsue]



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

It's worth noting also that the Passover wasn't until then celebrated in Judah. This is a bit off topic though.
You mentioning that reminded me that I was reading something about the passover in one of my books, that it originally was about crossing the Jordan. I looked at the indexes a of a few likely candidates for where I read that. Cross shows up in his index of Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. He relates it to Shechem and Gilgal. In the footnotes, he references Gerhard von Rad, in his essay on problems with the Hexateuch. Von Rad apparently was considered the expert on theories of the deutoronomic redactions concerning the cultic practices of ancient Israel. Seems like a science, with terms like, like Urdt and DetH. The Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies made a compilation of some of his essays, and there are some used ones available. I figured I had better order one because this is pretty much the starting point on these discussions, and that was reinforced by doing some google searches on the topic.
This gets back to the other thing you mentioned, the Book of the Law, as it seems the two things are related, the Passover, and the Book. Plus I think you end up having to examine verses like:

This commandment I am giving you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it too remote. It is not in heaven, as though one must say, “Who will go up to heaven to get it for us and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” And it is not across the sea, as though one must say, “Who will cross over to the other side of the sea and get it for us and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” For the thing is very near you – it is in your mouth and in your mind so that you can do it.
In John, Jesus seems to be referring to this passage a couple of times, as in, going up, and having a commandment.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
Jesus was glorified in John chapter 13. What he says to the disciples in 14-17 is the words from the Father. Including 'the new commandment'. Then he was the equal or higher than YHWH.

YHWH is still bound as if in chains to this earth as long as Torah remains, which is until 'the passing away of heaven and earth'. And yet, he also is a son of god, as if he were a prophet. In shadowed ways he points to the Father of all, he shouldn't be dispised.

In the same way Paul (make it on topic) is misunderstood. YHWH is more misunderstood.

Doctrines like 'trinity' assume the ignorance of YHWH is not ignorance but truth. Orthodoxies of Judaism and Christianity bind themselves to the ignorance and not the truth, YHWH has two sides too. As long as Orthodoxy has these ignorances YHWH cannot be free. They hurt themselves. They hurt YHWH and they hurt the Father, for the Father is One, and the parts are One in Him.

It seems ridiculously easy to forgive Paul for seeming to be anti-christ. YHWH is harder to forgive and release. We must do it eventually.

Aaron represents false prophets. While Moses was gone up to get the Law, Aaron gave the unbelievers what they wanted, with the golden calf, a going back to worship of the old time religion. Baal is less than El.

Joshua(Jesus) is the true prophet.


EX 17:14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven."

EX 33:11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

Who knows but that Moses spoke face to face with YHWH by speaking with Joshua, while the cloud stood at the entrance, blocking the view of the people while at the same time making the two One. In the same way at the Transfiguration, Jesus, Moses, and Elijah (all prophets) are in the cloud, obscuring the view from the disciples while at the same time making the 3 One.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by pthena]



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60


the Book of the Law, as it seems the two things are related, the Passover, and the Book.

The Book defines Israel, territory of Israel, the mythic origin(out of Egypt), the god of Israel, and manner of worship. Passover is part of origin myth.

Look at the end of Isaiah and Zechariah, ends with Feast of Tabernacles. This is the great hope offered to Israel by YHWH. They sit in mountain fortress of Jerusalem, living and dying their generations throughout eternity looking upon the dead bodies of those who attacked them. Gentile dogs cringing for eternity forced upon pain of drought to come and acknowledge the greatness of Israel and their clan god.

Really and truly there is nothing good whatsoever offered to Gentiles by YHWH, Nothing! Nothing! Nothing!

Did I happen to mention YHWH has nothing to offer Gentiles?

If you were commanded by Jesus to preach good news to Gentiles, how much of the Law would you be willing to put them under? What god would you bring to them, YHWH or someone bigger, above, a God of all, who makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile?

If you were Paul, how much tolerance would you show to those wanting to "only partially" put Gentiles under the law?

Even if I were a Jew I'd like to find a better god. The future offered by YHWH still seems a bit grim to me. An eternity of trips to the walls every Sabbath and New Moon to look upon the dead. Pretty grim.


[edit on 24-1-2010 by pthena]





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join