Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

false apostle Paul is the 1st AntiChrist! Christians quote Paul to counter radical teachings of Jes

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
This is from my own experience. Whenever I say anything about the radical teachings of Jesus, well-meaning Christians would be quick to counter with Paul's teachings, believing that everything in the Bible is the Truth!

Especially when things concern money and worldly things, the things very dear to us. Examples are many. Won't be quoting verses but you can google these principles and it should give you the Bible verses.

Jesus teaching:

"You can't serve two masters, you will hate one and love the other, you can't serve both God and money"
"Instructed his disciples not to carry anything with them in their ministry, not even an empty coin purse!"
"Sell all your possessions and follow me"
"Anyone who is in the world, the love of the Father is not in him"
"He who does not hate father, mother, children, wife for my sake is not worthy of me"
"Jesus offended a lot of people quite very often"

Peter:

"Was deeply convicted and desperately remorseful when he denied Jesus 3x, no longer did the same mistake later on which costed him his life"

A modern Christian response:

"PAUL made tents to sustain ministry, money is still and important part of Christian life and not to be hated (where does your faith for provisions rest, your ability to make money or from God?)
"It's okay to lie to save yourself or lie to ace that interview and secure that job since PAUL did this a few times to escape capture (not according to Peter and Jesus, Peter was bitterly sorrowful about denying Jesus, Paul seemed indifferent to lying!)
"We should try not to offend anyone as PAUL did who tried to blend in with the crowd, 'do what they do and what hey wear' (Jesus did not quack like everyone else which offended a lot of people)

Since many Christians believe Paul's writings is also correct, they downplayed Jesus radical teachings. And thought He was speaking figuratively. But if Jesus is speaking figuratively, then why did Jesus and his closest disciples lived a very austere life with very little possessed or none at all? Why did Jesus told that worldly possessions can forfeit your salvation? Why did Jesus told to 'carry your cross', only few will find the narrow gate and the narrow road?

From my own research, the Gospel of Jesus is NOT to change. It was the same thousands of years earlier in the Book of Enoch up to Jesus, so why would it suddenly change upon the having Paul in the scene? Unfortunately, the research had to be done with a book out of Canon. That's how bad the Canon Process and eventually the Canon Bible is.

Paul was here to contradict Jesus' quite radical teachings, thus, he is the first antichrist!

Finally, this video helps explain it further, I didn't make this video but found it very informative:





posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


What is radical about 'Love thy neighbor as you love yourself?' What is not radical about berating these teachings?
Jesus teaches to put all people above personal gain and possessions. This thread has as much valid info as a state of the union address. There is only 1 antichrist Nostradomus followers. I have to assume as he's the only person I've heard saying that there is more than 1. And he's coming soon according to the signs.
edit on 6-8-2012 by GoldenRuled because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
I have read Paul teachings that are directly Satanic (Not evil, not luciferian, Satanic).

He claimed that people themselves are God hmhmhmhm.

Namaste.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Paul the first Heretic

I don't think i'd go so far as to say he was the anti-christ... but paul definatly had a different doctrine then Jesus did...

I'll S&F this topic... but i would expect Christians to be on this topic like flies on a turd...

They love paul, and routinely use his words to defend against Jesus... how sad is that?

The doctrine of "grace" is a lie... and purely paulian thought... NOT Jesus...

I will always contend that Paul hijacked the religion and made it his own... Paulianity


edit on 6-8-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reserved spot for future reply cause i'm heading to work



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Keeper of Kheb
reserved spot for future reply cause i'm heading to work


Huh???? This is not a swimming pool at a holiday resort dude, you can't reserve spots!
edit on 6-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 



"Instructed his disciples not to carry anything with them in their ministry, not even an empty coin purse!" "Sell all your possessions and follow me"

Luke 22:35-36

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Luke was a follower of Paul... By the way...

Careful my friend




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

Galatians 2:9

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.


2 Peter 3:15-16

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


If Paul was a heretic, so were the other disciples for buying into his doctrine.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


First of all, here's a quote from Paul regarding money:

1 Timothy 6:9-11

9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

For those who had money, this is what he said:

17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


You may want to read 2 Peter 3:15-16.


Also, John was writing about the coming antichrist after Paul had been martyred.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


If you actually read that thread you'll notice i didn't call Paul a Heretic... but that artical did make me question paul and his writing... and after comparitive analysis... and noticing that Christians will attempt to counter Jesus words with pauls... (which blew my mind!
)

my conclusion was as previously stated... He hijacked the religion...

I believe Paul has more followers then Jesus in the christian community...

Just my opinion though




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Secondly, Paul didn't contradict Jesus on abolishing the law.

Paul never said to abolish the 10 commandments. He was addressing the other 200 "laws" (traditions) outlined in the book of Leviticus.

As a matter of fact, here's what Jesus said about those "laws":

Mark 7

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

All of these "laws" outlined in the book of Leviticus were set up to distinguish these people as a culture. They were tradition. Even Jesus said that these were traditions and not God's law.

When Jesus made the statement that he came to fulfill the law and not abolish it, he was talking about the law of sacrifice. He came as a perfect sacrifice so that no other future sacrifice would be needed.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 



He came as a perfect sacrifice so that no other future sacrifice would be needed.


He did not say that...

Take up your cross means sacrifice your own needs...




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Klassified
 


If you actually read that thread you'll notice i didn't call Paul a Heretic... but that artical did make me question paul and his writing... and after comparitive analysis... and noticing that Christians will attempt to counter Jesus words with pauls... (which blew my mind!
)

my conclusion was as previously stated... He hijacked the religion...

I believe Paul has more followers then Jesus in the christian community...

Just my opinion though



There is no "counter". Some historical contextual theology must be applied. When Christ was speaking it was still under the old covenant. The new covenant was not instituted until His death. Also Paul's ministry was primarily to Gentiles which were not offered the new covenant at first, it was to Jews only. Most of the time people do not factor into the equation the historical or cultural context. Christ touched briefly on New Covenant doctrines, but primarily He was teaching under and fulfilling the old covenant of the law.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Deetermined
 



He came as a perfect sacrifice so that no other future sacrifice would be needed.


He did not say that...

Take up your cross means sacrifice your own needs...



He meant a sin sacrifice.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Tell that to the Christians that use pauls words as such... Most of them around ATS have been banned already... but theres still a few left... I've told you before Paul has nothing on Jesus... i know Paul can't counter Jesus.


He meant a sin sacrifice.


I know what he meant... i was just clairifying




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



If you actually read that thread you'll notice i didn't call Paul a Heretic...

I know you didn't my friend. Part of that statement was aimed at the OP. I was just using my post to you as a vehicle.

I personally don't see all the contradictions between Paul and Jesus that some do. Unless of course verses are taken out of context. That being the case, I can find contradictions all day long.

Having said that though, the bible as a whole has many contradictions from cover to cover. Nevertheless, even as an atheist, I still think the bible is surprisingly fluid in its own doctrine.
edit on 8/6/2012 by Klassified because: clarity



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Deetermined
 



He came as a perfect sacrifice so that no other future sacrifice would be needed.


He did not say that...

Take up your cross means sacrifice your own needs...



I didn't say they totally gave up their sacrifices, but it's clear that the Bible says that the sacrifice of Christ put away all sin, so technically, they weren't needed any longer.

Hebrews 9

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Tell that to the Christians that use pauls words as such... Most of them around ATS have been banned already... but theres still a few left... I've told you before Paul has nothing on Jesus... i know Paul can't counter Jesus.


He meant a sin sacrifice.


I know what he meant... i was just clairifying

:

When Jesus was alive there was no such thing as the church (ekklesia) or the New Covenant of grace. The church was born on Pentecost and the New Covenant was established right before His arrest. Historical context is vital.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join