Paul: Rome's version of the Trojan Horse

reply to post by EnochWasRight


How am I trolling? Just because you refuse to accept the validity of my questions doesn't mean I'm trolling you.

Who is "their lord" in your opinion? If it's not Satan then who? What beef do you have with Peter if you don't think he was Satan or the antichrist?

You're avoiding answering my questions for a reason. What other reason could there be other than you feel uncomfortable answering them?

My questions undermine your conclusion, so instead of facing them and clearing the air, you tuck tail and run all the while accusing me of being deceptive and a troll on your way out. Why are you so defensive now?


Cognitive dissonance




Hey, you're even exhibiting one of the three main examples of this with your comments on Peter.

Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors.[6] This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior.

You're trying to tell me that when you said Peter might be "their lord", you didn't mean the antichrist or Satan? You knew exactly what you were implying, and so do I. You're lowering the importance of something you said by claiming you didn't mean it in the way I'm saying.

In what way did you mean it?

Very compelling, OP! I've long held the belief that the message of Christianity has been purposefully warped by those who saw that it's message would change the world to such a state that those who worship wealth, greed, and power would no longer have any kind of influence in the world.

I should disclose that I am not a Christian in any way shape of form but from what I've learned about it's early gnostic teachings has always intrigued me. When I try to reconcile that with what Christianity became and how it is now, I cannot. The only conclusions I can come to is either 1) human nature forbids spiritual ascension or 2) a very powerful faction was able to infiltrate the movement and warp the original message from the inside out...agent provocateurs, if you will.

It's also interesting to note that in the Gospel According to Mary Magdalene in the Lost Scriptures Mary tries to relay gospel she received from Jesus (mind you, Mary is supposed to also be an apostle). Peter gets up set at the notion and essentially accuses her of being a liar because he doesn't believe that Jesus would speak to a woman in private and not to all of them. This is mainly because he has a problem with the gospel that she has recited.

Obviously there are multiple connotations to this but in the context of this thread, it is another piece of evidence that could substantiate your idea given that this lost scripture points to Peter's, like Paul's, mysoginy as well as his, also like Paul's, disbelief in Jesus' teachings.

The only problem with this theory is that Paul's Letters (specifically Thessalonians 1, Galatians, and Romans) are the earliest writings we have about Jesus (they are even older than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - check out the dating range).

a reply to: arpgme

Yet they're not actually about Jesus... they're about Paul and his doctrine..

Which ironically show no teachings of Jesus... Why would they though, He didn't know Jesus...

Nor did he ever meet him

a reply to: arpgme

I'm not sure how this disproves the theory I presented. Paul's letters were still written after the crucifixion and Peter's apostleship correct? I don't see how the dating of the epistles has any bearing on the OP.

By the way, it's ok to disagree. I know my theory can't exactly be proven and that will always leave room for doubt for some people.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I'm not sure how this disproves the theory I presented. Paul's letters were still written after the crucifixion and Peter's apostleship correct? I don't see how the dating of the epistles has any bearing on the OP.

Your theory is that Paul was messing up Jesus's teachings, right? If Paul's letters are the earliest writings we have about Jesus then how can you determine that he was messing up Jesus's teachings if nothing was written down about Jesus before that?

Also, Peter refers to Paul as a 'beloved brother' and he warns that some things in his letters may be 'hard to understand' but he 'wrote with the wisdom that God gave him.'(2 Peter 3:15-16)

2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

a reply to: arpgme

Matthew 16
23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.

Why take the word of a known liar as fact? Why trust a man whom Jesus called Satan? Peter cannot be trusted.

3:
I am abbreviating your screenname,as it seems to me I have to work very hard to go back to get it…..that's no disrespect to you, please.

We've shared some thoughts as to this on my own thread recently. I appreciate and wholly respect what you've expressed here, and elsewhere..

but it seems to me, whomever Paul was, of the Sadduccees. or else, another poster suggested above we checked dates to clarify the essence of his message,checking that by time….

I'm afraid none of that washes with me, as I think we can no longer rely upon "time" as any quotient regarding any specific reality….

Suffice it to say for me, the essence of His message (jesus's) is essential, but not proved by any of our current human measurable proofs.
What does that mean, in translation, really.
That it's totally a question of faith…what you will and will not believe, sacrifice, attest to, die for,and exemplify in your everyday life, despite whatever stands in you way or seek to judge you while you do so, for you will run into the roadblocks……

But that should not deter us, I hope.

Was the message of Jesus's life and sacrifice lost in that translation?
I hope not. But again,that's a matter of pure faith. It matters not, I think, what you can quote, for we can argue that what those quotations are based upon aren't real or translated correctly, etc. What you cannot argue with, however, is the intent, and all those who sacrifice attendant upon that first sacrifice….
Perhaps that is all we have to hinge our belief, faith and way forward, upon……for what that' worth.
Tetra

I am quoting a post from the thread "Is This Faith in Life" where the topic was a bit off, but fits better here, I think.

Why was there a need for theological dissertation? That only opens things up to corruption. Jesus said to love God and others as yourself, why is there a need to break that down into a hundred different theologies and ideas? Forgive others to be forgiven, what is hard to understand about that?

Jesus' words were very simple and powerful, there was no need for a middle man such as Paul. Paul said to submit to authority, Jesus never did such a thing, going to his death defending his teachings which the authorities tried to silence. Jesus did not submit to the authorities, otherwise he would have never stirred up so much controversy from the authorities.

1 John 2
6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

Paul telling us to submit to authority goes against how Jesus lived, so whoever submits to authority does not live as Jesus did.

Jesus went against the status quo, Paul teaches us not to fight it lest we be judged by God's servants the authorities (Romans 13).

I think that the gospels are a later development and that Paul was writing in a sort of theological vacuum, as far as Christian literature goes.
I think that clear statements in the authentic writings of Paul reduces the multiplicity of theologies rather than increasing them.
I think the "authority" issue that Paul was talking about is things like open warfare in rebellion against the empire as it existed.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Paul's writings are some of the oldest writings about Christ, and Peter was one of the closest disciples (so close that Jesus trusted him with The Church).

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (and Revelation) were written as life-stories about Jesus based on stories told about his life (similar to an oral tradition). Paul's writings are the earliest writings we have about Jesus (1 Thessalonians and Galatians seems to be the earliest)

In both, Paul, Peter, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the ideas of Love, Compassion, and Helping others are the basis. In it's core message it is all in agreement.

a reply to: arpgme

You mean when he calls Peter the rock of the church then a few short verses later calls him Satan? I wouldn't trust anyone who Jesus calls Satan.

a reply to: arpgme

Paul's writings are some of the oldest writings about Christ, and Peter was one of the closest disciples (so close that Jesus trusted him with The Church).

I think that the gospels were things that could have been entirely dependent on Paul's writings, or maybe more importantly, what he said that was not written in his surviving letters.

Peter was symbolically "given the keys to the kingdom".
It had nothing to do with being made a king or something but an indication that judgment had been declared on what previously stood in the place of "the kingdom".
It matches up with what is in the Prophets that happened when the old kingdom of Israel was judged.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Paul wasn't a good guy the whole time though, in fact he was an avid persecutor of Jesus' earliest followers, going as far as to go from temple to temple asking their leaders contact him whenever Christians were near so that he could round them up and eventually kill them.

What you are talking about is a fictional character named Paul, in a book that superficially appears to be a sort of history.
Paul "persecuted" the church by entering into debates with Christians over theological questions.
Paul was never involved in the Syrian churches or synagogues so could have never done the tings purported of him in Acts.

Have a good time hating this figure because it has nothing to do with the actual historical Paul other than a shared name.
My suggestion is to meet the real Paul by reading Galatians and Romans, the Corinthian letters, and 1 Thessalonians and Philippians.

a reply to: jmdewey60

The Paul in Acts that you say is different from the one who wrote his epistles is the same as me saying the Jesus in Paul's epistles is different from the one in the gospels.

The Jesus of Paul's epistles has nothing to do with the actual historical Jesus other than a shared name.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The Paul in Acts that you say is different from the one who wrote his epistles is the same as me saying the Jesus in Paul's epistles is different from the one in the gospels.

One "Paul" is a real person, the other isn't.

The Jesus of Paul's epistles has nothing to do with the actual historical Jesus other than a shared name.

Paul had Jesus "appear" to him, so he knew Jesus in a one on one way.
The anonymous write of Acts was removed from these persons by an entire generation.

a reply to: jmdewey60

One "Jesus" was a real person, the other one wasn't.

Galatians 1
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.

1 Corinthians 15
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

You say Paul never persecuted Christians yet Paul himself admits to it in his own epistles.

How can you believe Paul ever converted when his conversion is accounted for in a book you believe is unhistorical? How can you believe Paul's persecution of the church is untrue when he admits to it himself?

Paul never knew Jesus and the Jesus he wrote about is not the same one from the gospels.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You say Paul never persecuted Christians yet Paul himself admits to it in his own epistles.

I do read the Bible, like hours a day (I have a blog on biblical Greek that I am constantly adding pages to), so of course I didn't say that Paul didn't persecute Christians.
The writer of Acts probably read that in Paul's writing and invented scenarios for his story that would seem interesting to his would-be readers.
The best scholarship says that he only disrupted Christian meetings by asking questions of the evangelists that would make them seem stupid.

The Greek word in the text being translated as "persecute" means to harass.
"Persecute" could today have a different connotation connected to the idea that the pagan Romans killed people just for being Christians.

a reply to: jmdewey60

He said that he tried to destroy the church. How does one try to "destroy" something by just harassing it in the way you are trying to make it mean? How do you destroy a movement? By killing its followers and throwing them in jail, you don't do it by just insulting it with words alone. In what ways was he "harassing" Christians in your opinion?

Do you distrust Luke's gospel as well? Because Acts has the same author behind it.

It seems quite obvious that you are using semantics to support your theory. Semantics is not a very good defense I'm afraid. The fact is Paul admitted to persecuting the church and Christians before his conversion.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

How does one try to "destroy" something by just harassing it . . .

You should look up the word, "rhetoric".
Do some study on the topic, then you might understand its importance at the time.
It would be like owning all the TV networks today, as far as influence on public opinion goes.

Dang, and here I thought this was going to be a thread about Ron or Rand Paul.