Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Religion can make you a better person?

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Wow! Thanks about the info on paul. I knew a bit but not that much. It amazes me how he got to become an apostle based on just his own word.
I do know that 'the best way to destroy something is from the inside' maybe paul knew it much better.




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I'm being insulting and rude? You just yesterday claimed you weren't the one being "stubborn" in our dialogue.

You can dish it out but not take it in return? And saying you lied about something you indeed lied about is neither insulting or rude, it's calling a spade a spade. You never researched the material I asked you to research then claimed you had.

That's not the truth Wild.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Wow! Thanks about the info on paul. I knew a bit but not that much. It amazes me how he got to become an apostle based on just his own word.
I do know that 'the best way to destroy something is from the inside' maybe paul knew it much better.



Read Acts 15 and 2 Peter 3:15-16 sometime. If the disciples accepted his apostleship you can likewise.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Then how do you explain Saul persecuting Christians in the early, PURE decades of Christianity?

Funny how Jesus waited until AFTER Paul killed hundreds or thousands of his followers to give him his vision.

Paul's conversion is mentioned twice in the NT and both do not agree. The mention of his conversion in Galatians was from Paul himself and it doesn't mention anything about how he was converted or that he saw a vision from Jesus. He is strangely silent on the details. Then Luke comes in and authors Acts and adds in all the details of the conversion himself. Weird.
edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Yes, Constantine legalized Christianity and forbid it's persecution in Rome. Theodocius I made Christianity the official faith of the Empire.

See "Edict of Toleration, Edict of Milan 313AD".



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Wow! Thanks about the info on paul. I knew a bit but not that much. It amazes me how he got to become an apostle based on just his own word.
I do know that 'the best way to destroy something is from the inside' maybe paul knew it much better.



Read Acts 15 and 2 Peter 3:15-16 sometime. If the disciples accepted his apostleship you can likewise.

not necessarily!
Acts is written by Luke, student of paul. You are asking me to read a book written 1/3rd by paul to prove he is genuine?
The other apostles tolerated him and let him go to the gentiles to do what he wishes and they kept obeying Jesus pbuh and concentrating on jewish tribes.
Paul's teachings directly contradicts Jesus' pbuh.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Here's Paul's version of his conversion.


Galatians 1
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephasand stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.


No mention of being blinded for three days or seeing Jesus in a vision, only in a "revelation".

I also find it odd how he had to add in "I am not lying" at the end. Liars usually try to convince others that they are not lying. Especially weird is how he waits until right after mentioning meeting Peter to say he wasn't lying, in my opinion. I'm referencing Paul/Peter being the same person.
edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Then how do you explain Saul persecuting Christians in the early, PURE decades of Christianity?


He was a Pharisee? The first persecutions of Christians came from the Jewish Authorities.


Funny how Jesus waited until AFTER Paul killed hundreds or thousands of his followers to give him his vision.


He really didn't kill them, he was sent to round them up and arrest them to be taken to Jerusalem.


Paul's conversion is mentioned twice in the NT and both do not agree. The mention of his conversion in Galatians was from Paul himself and it doesn't mention anything about how he was converted or that he saw a vision from Jesus. He is strangely silent on the details. Then Luke comes in and authors Acts and adds in all the details of the conversion himself. Weird.
edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Paul mentions it more than in Galatians. And secondly, Luke was writing a historical account of the acts of the apostles. Paul's letters were mostly pastoral.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


He may have forbid Christian execution, but he didn't forbid pagan persecution. Whoever was pagan within the city, Constantine force-converted to Christianity. Those who refused were first tortured then killed.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Wow! Thanks about the info on paul. I knew a bit but not that much. It amazes me how he got to become an apostle based on just his own word.
I do know that 'the best way to destroy something is from the inside' maybe paul knew it much better.



Read Acts 15 and 2 Peter 3:15-16 sometime. If the disciples accepted his apostleship you can likewise.

not necessarily!
Acts is written by Luke, student of paul. You are asking me to read a book written 1/3rd by paul to prove he is genuine?
The other apostles tolerated him and let him go to the gentiles to do what he wishes and they kept obeying Jesus pbuh and concentrating on jewish tribes.
Paul's teachings directly contradicts Jesus' pbuh.


And if so Paul and Luke's contemporaries didn't say any of it was BS? Instead Peter, the leader of the apostles said Paul was a "beloved brother" and that everything he said was true "in all his epistles"?


Makes perfect sense! Peter was in on it too!



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


He may have forbid Christian execution, but he didn't forbid pagan persecution. Whoever was pagan within the city, Constantine force-converted to Christianity. Those who refused were first tortured then killed.


Are you reading Dan Brown??

Constantine gave each group in Rome their own day of worship.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Guess you missed this part:

For the first half of his life, Paul was a member of the Pharisees, a Jewish faction that promoted strict orthodoxy and formalism.[10] They were formidable persecutors of the new Christian movement, and Paul later described himself as a "Pharisee, a son of Pharisees".[Acts 23:6]



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I don't want to involve myself in this little spat...

But you do realize peter betrayed Jesus right?

Whos to say that peter didn't back paul just to further their agenda... that being hijacking the church

IF peter screwed over his "lord"... surely its not outside he realm of possibilities that he backed a liar and a murderer who wanted a following.




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Guess you missed this part:

For the first half of his life, Paul was a member of the Pharisees, a Jewish faction that promoted strict orthodoxy and formalism.[10] They were formidable persecutors of the new Christian movement, and Paul later described himself as a "Pharisee, a son of Pharisees".[Acts 23:6]



Are you kidding? I've said twice now that at the time of Paul and the first few decades of Christianity the persecution DID NOT come from Rome, BUT FROM the Jewish authorities.

Pharisees = Jewish authorities.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Who do you think the Jewish authorities were?! The Pharisees! Paul was one of those Jewish authorities going around persecuting Christians. Are you really missing the connection between Jewish authorities and Pharisees? Or are you willfully ignoring it?

So you assume he didn't kill anyone? Why do you assume that when Paul himself implies that he did? Say I give someone a gun to go on a shooting spree, in the process 20 people are shot. Am I not to blame? Didn't I supply the gun for the sole purpose of killing people. What's the difference between that and Paul?
edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I don't want to involve myself in this little spat...

But you do realize peter betrayed Jesus right?

Whos to say that peter didn't back paul just to further their agenda... that being hijacking the church

IF peter screwed over his "lord"... surely its not outside he realm of possibilities that he backed a liar and a murderer who wanted a following.



Jesus later restored Peter to fellowship and made him leader remember?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Who do you think the Jewish authorities were?! The Pharisees! Paul was one of those Jewish authorities going around persecuting Christians. Are you really missing the connection between Jewish authorities and Pharisees? Or are you willfully ignoring it?



Uhhhhh they are one and the same. What I have been saying since you claimed Paul was sent by Rome. He wasn't, he was sent by the Jews.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I don't want to involve myself in this little spat...

But you do realize peter betrayed Jesus right?

Whos to say that peter didn't back paul just to further their agenda... that being hijacking the church

IF peter screwed over his "lord"... surely its not outside he realm of possibilities that he backed a liar and a murderer who wanted a following.



Jesus later restored Peter to fellowship and made him leader remember?


Yes... after he died...

It seems a bunch of changes happened "after" he died... including paul and his little encounter with Jesus...

Which I don't believe for a second




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Or maybe Peter was a Roman the whole time? A certain Roman named Paul? That's what I believe. If Luke was Plutarch and Luke wrote Acts, then he could have changed Peter's name to Paul. Plutarch did write a book called "Parallel Lives" after all.

They couldn't have Peter writing all of these letters to important Roman people, that would look suspicious, so they changed his name. In my opinion.
edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Yet he was given Roman citizenship. He was a Roman Pharisee who persecuted Christians then turned around and changed the message.

Are you now agreeing that someone "sent" him?
edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
4
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join