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.

 

Paul messed up Christianity

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I think paul messed up! Honestly, if I had to pick a disciple (he really never met the physical jesus either) of Christ, I would say that Paul, (probably the one with greatest of political power) is to blame for the majority of the issues with the Church. Honestly, Paul work is good, the core beliefs, but his attack towards and against Peter and the "so called disciples" are degrading and judgmental. Paul, in my opinion the REAL rock of catholic (because most of the catholic doctrine is based on pauls writing rather than Peter, and catholics use Peter as a scape goat as being the first church, how do I know this, I was raised (sorta am, kinda, not really) catholic.

Don't get me wrong, Paul's core beliefs on subjects are incredible. Simply incrediable and I do believe we did (at the time) needed a Gentile to explain these wonderful ideas in the new testament. Obviously, Paul was against Christ and had a political movement against him (there is the word, Political) In my opinion Political power ruins religion and organize religion and ultimately humanity than spirituality and/or doctrine teachings of othrodox church.

So In my opinion, Paul is honestly the one who created the Church (not the Church of Christ, cause the church that christ spoke about is a collective union, not some 4x4 building), stationed a hierchy and created the political power that brought us everything from Crusades to Pedo priest.

Just sharing my thoughts.




edit on 5-5-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


I agree... Paul never met Jesus in person... Didn't teach his lessons but took his own path, and his own preaching to the road.

He claimed to follow Christ... i have my doubts... but i can't claim he didn't because i've obviously never met him...

His lessons on love are admirable though...

I do believe Paul is where Christians came up with the idea that Jesus was God...

Paul the first Heretic




posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Paul was a mysoginistic man.

His contempt for women shows in his writings. Granted, that was a cultural norm at the time. But Paul's teachings on women have caused more harm than good.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I still believe that Jesus was God, nothing wrong with that, christ said it without saying it in the gospels, if you beieve in it.

Probably the most damaging hate speech Paul did was not only against the 12 apostles , but also to homosexuality, which honestly, homosexuality was an issue during the ancients. But during our modern times, homosexuality is among us, a lifestyle that is celebrated through parties, clubs, parades and all that. It's out there and in your face. All the while the church is saying that it is moraly against homosexuality, they too provide in the practice of homosexuality, either pedo, or computer porn. (check my thread) and JC never said a thing about this topic.

Tell me why do the church feel like being gay is a such an damn issue, when over 85% of humanity is heterosexual, the earth is nicely over populated and homosexuality may balance the parameter of the population.
edit on 5-5-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Paul was a mysoginistic man.

His contempt for women shows in his writings. Granted, that was a cultural norm at the time. But Paul's teachings on women have caused more harm than good.


This too is an interesting subject. He has shown contempt for a few women, thecla, and probably some other. Honestly we are not sure if paul was a sexist or not, some writings say yes and other says no, so ultimately i feel he didn't know for sure either.

Damn, i be all those self rightious people meter-bated a lot



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


Im not going to derail your thead by turning it into yet another "Jesus is/is not God" debate...

I'll just say i agree with you on almost every point you've made on paul...




posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Jordan River
 


Im not going to derail your thead by turning it into yet another "Jesus is/is not God" debate...

I'll just say i agree with you on almost every point you've made on paul...



I already knew your stance np



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Yeah, he has always struck me as a quite the charliton



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 

Paul was a mysoginistic man.

His contempt for women shows in his writings. Granted, that was a cultural norm at the time. But Paul's teachings on women have caused more harm than good.
I think if you look at the misogynist verses, you will find out they are in pseudo-Paul, such as 1 Timothy, which was written some time after his death.
edit on 5-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


Perhaps i can illistrate my point then...

Paul is one of the reasons why Christians believe he was God...

Paul takes things out of context right here, and an obvious contradiction stands out...

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Now for what Jesus actually said about this...

In John 5 he narrates this same statement... but notice the slight differences...

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus gives the real answer...

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Can you read This entire passage and still believe Jesus said he was equal to his Father?

Read the entire chapter for Context... Jesus himself tares apart any arguement that he was "equal with God"



edit on 5-5-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by smyleegrl
 

Paul was a mysoginistic man.

His contempt for women shows in his writings. Granted, that was a cultural norm at the time. But Paul's teachings on women have caused more harm than good.
I think if you look at the misogynist verses, you will find out they are in pseudo-Paul, such as 1 Timothy, which was written some time after his death.
edit on 5-5-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Werent they all written after his death?



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Jordan River
 


Perhaps i can illistrate my point then...

Paul is one of the reasons why Christians believe he was God...

Paul takes things out of context right here, and an obvious contradiction stands out...

Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Now for what Jesus actually said about this...

In John 5 he narrates this same statement... but notice the slight differences...

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus gives the real answer...

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Can you read This entire passage and still believe Jesus said he was equal to his Father?

Read the entire chapter for Context... Jesus himself tares apart any arguement that he was "equal with God"



edit on 5-5-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)


I look at Jesus as God incarnate a person. Like avatar the movie. as a arguement against what you said it is simply as just. God was in the avatar (born into) the physical body of Jesus. Tis true that Jesus cannot do anything without God. Because God is greater than Jesus, because God is unlimited compared to the mortal body. again its the age old arguement, but i just think that GOd went into a person in order to show what Humanity should live up too.
But interesting around the time that the Jews accepted that the humen body was a pile of filth that needed constant renewel, because the mortal body was filth in the eye of God, God did the opposit of what was considered a traditional norm. He entered inside a man
but seriously i dont care what you believe, you are not me. i just didn't want the thread to go off on this tangent, its always so...
God is superior to Jesus, but funny thing, the dead Jesus is superior to the living.
edit on 5-5-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


paul was a student of gamaliel,
who was known to be well versed in qabala and related subjects
both were persecutors of the primitive church
[which was more akin to gnosticism than most xtians would have you believe]

while on the road to damascus one day paul had

A BRILLIANT IDEA

persecuting jesus's followers was having the unfortunate effect of generating sympathy for them;
especially by those who, though not followers had seen and heard the young rebbe from nazareth.

so if you cant beat them,
join them
and subvert from within

some self hypnosis or related trick
generated hysterical blindness
and the brilliant idea*
became a blinding flash of illumination
the above analysis became a psycho-drama/vision of jesus
and saul was transformed into paul, the unconcious sleeper agent

corrupting from within

having been trained in these matters psychic/magickal
the primitive untutored psychic/magicians of the early church
were no match for one who knew what he was doing
the joke is that paul did so well he wound up being killed by his own side as it were

much later constantine also had
A BRILLIANT IDEA [minus the hypnosis]
the rest is history

*reason and rational thinking were not common in those days
however the psycho-historical development of human consciousness is a whole 'nother matter



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by Jordan River
 


paul was a student of gamaliel,
who was known to be well versed in qabala and related subjects
both were persecutors of the primitive church
[which was more akin to gnosticism than most xtians would have you believe]

while on the road to damascus one day paul had

A BRILLIANT IDEA

persecuting jesus's followers was having the unfortunate effect of generating sympathy for them;
especially by those who, though not followers had seen and heard the young rebbe from nazareth.

so if you cant beat them,
join them
and subvert from within

some self hypnosis or related trick
generated hysterical blindness
and the brilliant idea*
became a blinding flash of illumination
the above analysis became a psycho-drama/vision of jesus
and saul was transformed into paul, the unconcious sleeper agent

corrupting from within

having been trained in these matters psychic/magickal
the primitive untutored psychic/magicians of the early church
were no match for one who knew what he was doing
the joke is that paul did so well he wound up being killed by his own side as it were

much later constantine also had
A BRILLIANT IDEA [minus the hypnosis]
the rest is history

*reason and rational thinking were not common in those days
however the psycho-historical development of human consciousness is a whole 'nother matter


I would applause if I could, wow that almost made sense



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


You're free to believe what you will my friend...

Though if you read HIS words as opposed to what others said about him... you can see there is a seperation between him and God...

They are ONE... but you'll notice he says "the Father is IN me, and i IN him"

The Father is always greater then the son, not equal to... This is what the trinity fails to distinguish...

He is the essence of God... his son... as you are the essence of your mother and father...




posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Jordan River
 


You're free to believe what you will my friend...

Though if you read HIS words as opposed to what others said about him... you can see there is a seperation between him and God...

They are ONE... but you'll notice he says "the Father is IN me, and i IN him"

The Father is always greater then the son, not equal to... This is what the trinity fails to distinguish...

He is the essence of God... his son... as you are the essence of your mother and father...



I agree with your perspective. and still accept what I believe. Although when you mean, essance? you mean a part ? as i know that I am a little peice of GOd? see how their is so many miss interpation of those who are online and trying to type and distinguish a stance
edit on 5-5-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Jordan River
 


You're free to believe what you will my friend...

Though if you read HIS words as opposed to what others said about him... you can see there is a seperation between him and God...

They are ONE... but you'll notice he says "the Father is IN me, and i IN him"

The Father is always greater then the son, not equal to... This is what the trinity fails to distinguish...

He is the essence of God... his son... as you are the essence of your mother and father...



I agree with your perspective. and still accept what I believe. Although when you mean, essance? you mean a part ? as i know that I am a little peice of GOd? see how their is so many miss interpation of those who are online and trying to type and distinguish a stance
edit on 5-5-2012 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)


Yes... a part of God... as you and i are also a part of God... as all life is a part of God...

Let me reiterate...

33 The 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?

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

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


Ye are Gods.... now compare... this speaks to all the world and the state we live in...


Psalm 86

They 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.

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

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


edit on 5-5-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Don't forget Paul wrote his epistles much earlier than when the gospels were finally formalized and included in the Catholic canon. And yes, as JMDewey pointed out, some letters attributed to Paul were later forgeries.

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Galatians 1:6-7

But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
Galations 2: 4-5

Reflect on the following:

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Galatians 2:7-9



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 


Peter deserved rebuke. He acted one way when the Jews were not around and acted another way toward the Gentiles when the Jews did come around.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jordan River
 




I do believe we did (at the time) needed a Gentile to explain these wonderful ideas in the new testament.

Paul(Saul) was not a gentile. He was a Jew. A Pharisee of Pharisees if we are to believe what the text says.
However, he was sent to the gentiles.



he really never met the physical jesus either

The other apostles didn't seem to have a problem accepting Paul as an apostle.



I would say that Paul, (probably the one with greatest of political power) is to blame for the majority of the issues with the Church.

I disagree. It is Paul who expounded much of the old testament. As well as our understanding of grace vs. the law. And backed up his exegesis very well.
The church is to blame for the majority of the issues of the church. Placing the blame anywhere else is a cop out, IMHO.



but his attack towards and against Peter and the "so called disciples" are degrading and judgmental.

I thought his rebuke of Peter was more than justified.

Much of the church doctrine might have been built around Pauline doctrine, but that doesn't mean Paul had it wrong, it just means his epistles, like the rest of the biblical texts were misrepresented to the public by the church heirarchy.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join