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.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy
Did you know that Paul's parents are never mentioned in the bible? The only reference to them is Acts 2:25 where Paul says he is a Roman, which means one of his parents had to be Roman.
Peter's fathers name was Judah/Judas who the the Roman province of Judea was named after and who also shares a name with the disciple who betrayed Jesus by selling him. Simon had his name changed to Peter; Saul had his name changed to Paul. Their first names both start with S and both of their second names both start with a P. Coincidence? Maybe, but maybe not.
Peter was even crucified upside down, that is a sign of the antichrist. Paul and Peter may be the same person. After Jesus died Peter moved to Rome, where Paul was a citizen. Peter was even called Satan by Jesus himself. What they talk about is stuff made by the antichrist and that includes the ideas of salvation and faith in Jesus' death.
Paul isn't even mentioned until the book Acts which wasn't written until around 60 AD, that's a whole 30 years after Jesus died. Paul is first mentioned in Acts 7:58. Peter is not mentioned in Acts 7 but is in Acts 6 & 8. In Acts 8:9-25 it mentions Peter talking to a man named Simon who was a sorcerer who was believed to be the "Power of God". Peter's previous name was Simon, this is where Peter begins to become Paul.
Acts was written somewhere between 62-70 AD, Paul wrote his letters sometime between 66-69 AD, Peter was also crucified in Rome upside down right around the time Paul wrote his letters in 67-68 AD.
Funny how Peter decided to be crucified upside down because that is a sign of the antichrist. Peter was never crucified, he just defected to Rome and changed his name to Paul where he made up the ideas of salvation.
Peter even agrees with what Paul says in 2 Peter 3:15, saying what he says is "hard to understand". I thought Jesus' yoke was easy and his burden light? Something that is hard to understand is not easy or light, yet you base most of your beliefs on what Paul said.
The timeline lines up perfectly with them being the same person in my opinion.
edit on 22-9-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy
edit on 22-9-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by MeesterB
Karma is the judge and you judge yourself by the way you live this life. If you follow what Jesus taught and ignore anything by Paul you would realize this, especially when you realize you have eternal life with no strings attached no matter what you believe.
Read Rich Man and Lazarus, it's an excellent story that supports reincarnation and karma.
Originally posted by WarminIndy
You make a great pretense of having read the Bible. Paul was of what tribe? Benjamin, correct?
Now let me ask you this, when Paul addresses something about Peter in several letters, and these churches had MET both men, then how can they be the same person? Huh? Care to explain that one?
In Acts 23:6, he says his father was also a Pharisee, his mother was a Roman citizen because they were from what is now Turkey. His teacher was Rabban Gamaliel I, who told him to refrain from killing Christians. Gamaliel was an authority in the Sanhedrin, a Jewish sect. Now I wonder where you can find information about him? OOOHH yes, the Talmud.
Paul was a Benjamite, studied under Gamaliel, his father was a Pharisee, and when asked, he explicitly states he was a HEBREW.
I want to know this, as you seem to be very much against Paul, why is this so? Why do you keep wanting us to know he killed Christians? We ALL know he did this. He never hid that fact from anyone. Why are you fixated on Paul? It's like you have a vendetta against him.
It seems almost that you have no concept of Rome as an empire before Christianity and that Rome was pagan. When we give you writings from Roman authors, you say "they were killers", yes, we know they were. But this was before the Catholic church. If Christianity was pagan, why didn't the pagan Romans recognize it?
Before Constantine became a Christian, what was he? A pagan. Why did he convert, if it was pagan as you propose? What would be the need for him to convert if the religions were the same? Do you have a problem with Rome being pagan? I think that must be it, you have trouble accepting that pagans killed people and want to believe pagans have always been innocent victims of the Christians. You present this so much, you can't even read historical documents without denying them. Even when those documents are accepted as true from liberal universities.
I remember you posting in another thread about how you challenged some men in your church, then you walked proudly out as though you had proven a point. What was it you said you worshiped in that thread? Oh yes, paganism. The Roman empire was guilty of killing Christians, but you can't seem to process that. Instead, you keep pointing out about Paul killing Christians, implying Paul was a secret operative for Christian Rome. Because to you, if it is now Catholic, and Catholics killed pagans, then Rome must have always been a Christian empire.
What you really are saying is that Paul was really killing pagans. I think by now, others will have picked up on that as well. And don't say I put words in your mouth, we conversed about this on another thread. You just can't seem to grasp history.