It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The bible exposes Paul as a false apostle.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Oh, I see, the old "Paul invented Christianity" chestnut. I think Paul is misunderstood because he had maybe a too forceful way of expressing himself, and (as Peter admitted) he wrote about things that were hard to understand. It does not matter to me, the Bible is a single document from end to end, the Pauline epistles included, and the codes would have found him out it he were a liar. I speak of course, of the codes discovered by Panin - they keep me on track, so I don't get sidetracked by the "Paul was a liar" argument, and other such drivel.




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


Its not an arguement my friend, its a fact...

But you keep to your ideals... Believe the bible is all true...

Though i tell you that will be your stumbling block.

Good luck




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 

. . . and (as Peter admitted) he wrote about things that were hard to understand.
That was written (not by Peter) to make a reconciliation to a perceived dispute between Peter, and Paul, by showing hos Paul was really closer to Peter if he was properly understood.
edit on 4-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 




So what specifically are the changes introduced by Paul's teaching? I don't doubt there are many differences, but I haven't thought about this before. I've always thought the non-Pauline epistles were more inspiring though.


Off the top of my head..

Jesus : "call no man your father"
Paul : "today I became your father"

There are several more instances where Paul said things that was not in line with what Jesus taught.

Of course, Pauls supporters will perform all kinds of mental acrobatics to explain this away.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Well, you should learn church traditions passed down from the apostles. Protestants ignore this tradition but ironically use books approved by Catholics. The bottom line is Catholics call their priests father because they are a conduit of the Father. We confess our sins to them and they perform the duties in mass. We do not confuse them with God the Father.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by cloudyday
 




So what specifically are the changes introduced by Paul's teaching? I don't doubt there are many differences, but I haven't thought about this before. I've always thought the non-Pauline epistles were more inspiring though.


Off the top of my head..

Jesus : "call no man your father"
Paul : "today I became your father"

There are several more instances where Paul said things that was not in line with what Jesus taught.

Of course, Pauls supporters will perform all kinds of mental acrobatics to explain this away.


As I think about it, it would be almost impossible to remove Paul's ideas from Christianity, because his followers formed the official church and chose the books to be in the New Testament. If Paul had wrong ideas then the whole religion might need to be scrapped.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by cloudyday
 




So what specifically are the changes introduced by Paul's teaching? I don't doubt there are many differences, but I haven't thought about this before. I've always thought the non-Pauline epistles were more inspiring though.


Off the top of my head..

Jesus : "call no man your father"
Paul : "today I became your father"

There are several more instances where Paul said things that was not in line with what Jesus taught.

Of course, Pauls supporters will perform all kinds of mental acrobatics to explain this away.


As I think about it, it would be almost impossible to remove Paul's ideas from Christianity, because his followers formed the official church and chose the books to be in the New Testament. If Paul had wrong ideas then the whole religion might need to be scrapped.


haha!

Thats the best idea i've heard all week!

Might have an issue convincing all of paulianity though




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

Ephesus was where one of the congregations (gathering together) of Christian's that Paul was part of. Paul was already sanctified by Jesus as having a special work to do, & he did that until he died. The fact that there were Ephesians who rejected the message of Christ does not make Paul the subject of the admonition to the Ephesians.He was approved for the work by Christ himself. Ephesians were also the people who lived in the city around the congregation in Ephesus as Asian's lived in Asia, but there were congregations there., The congregations lived amongst the nations, as they do today. & People reject God's word still because they don't want to listen. not because the people saying it are bad. Jesus only left one purpose, & that was to tell people what he taught. The Ephesians were credited with not allowing badness into the congregation, but it doesn't say at all that it was directed at Paul. There were many trying to mislead those who followed Christ.
Paul was known as a tyrant towards the Christians before the Damascus trip. Perhaps it was because of who he was as Saul that they rejected him. But as Paul, Although He had divine favor, not everyone wanted to listen, much like today too. He was not who Jesus was referring to. Paul deemed himself a sinner, but Jesus knew of his passion & determination because of the zeal he had for killing the Christians. Paul was forgiven his sins, & they were many. God does not look back at what we do wrong if we change our ways. Paul was perhaps the most extreme of sinners against God's people, such as they were, but just because he changed, didn't mean others wanted to. After all, Jesus hadn't taken a personal interest in them, & they liked sinning... Maybe if they were all struck blind, they would have listened & changed as Paul did. He fought the fine fight. Being a Christian wasn't always rewarding, like Asia rejecting him. It wasn't Paul they rejected. It was Jesus... Paul died in good standing with Jesus & with God.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by greyer
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Thank you for this post. I found in the bible that Paul may have been a changed man from the vision he saw and he write good material but he not to be trusted by believers in the bible that say you have to go by every word in the bible. Little do all those women know that Paul told them to cover their heads while in a church and if they didn't, they should shave the hair off their head. Screw that BS. People are absolutely stupid, they have a mind smaller than the mind of a sewer rat, if they say to follow every single word in the bible when it has BS like that written from Paul. I love Jesus, but I am sick of people who are ignorant and fight for things they don't even have knowledge or understanding about.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by honestyblaze
 



Being a Christian wasn't always rewarding, like Asia rejecting him. It wasn't Paul they rejected. It was Jesus... Paul died in good standing with Jesus & with God.


The problem is that Ephesus, in Asia, was not rebuked for rejecting Paul at all.

Notice the sequence of events...
a)Paul preached to the Ephesus, in Asia.
b) All of Asia, Ephesus included ....rejected Paul
b) Ephesus recieved praised for rejecting false apostles






edit on 6-12-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 

As I think about it, it would be almost impossible to remove Paul's ideas from Christianity, because his followers formed the official church and chose the books to be in the New Testament. If Paul had wrong ideas then the whole religion might need to be scrapped.
There is evidence that the NT started with the book which Paul produced, which is the compilation of the letters to the Romans, the Corinthians, and to the Galatians. The rest of the books of the NT were attached to that first NT version, after Paul had died around 67 A.D.
There is pretty good evidence pointing to the Gospel of Mark having been written in Rome by an associate of Paul's and also of Peter. So the proto-New Testament would have been a basically Pauline book. What resulted after Paul's death was a drive to find more letters by Paul in order to add to the collection that they already had, with various results, such as a few authentic ones, and a few forgeries made to look like they were written by Paul.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by honestyblaze
 



Being a Christian wasn't always rewarding, like Asia rejecting him. It wasn't Paul they rejected. It was Jesus... Paul died in good standing with Jesus & with God.


The problem is that Ephesus, in Asia, was not rebuked for rejecting Paul at all.

Notice the sequence of events...
a)Paul preached to the Ephesus, in Asia.
b) All of Asia, Ephesus included ....rejected Paul
b) Ephesus recieved praised for rejecting false apostles






edit on 6-12-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


The sequence is correct, but a strict logical analysis must say that Paul as a false apostle is NOT proven. It's one of those maybe, maybe not things. It requires Paul being named in the letter to Ephesus in the Revelation to clinch the case, and he is not. This dog don't hunt - give it a rest, folks.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


The congregation of Ephesus was credited. Not the People of Ephesus. One is smaller than the other. On the whole, the people were sinners who rejected Paul's words. In doing that, they rejected Christ, but the Christian's tried to be good Christian's & reject what God rejects. The people were left without God, but the Christian's were praised.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join