Paul: Rome's version of the Trojan Horse

a reply to: jmdewey60

His epistles seem like pretty good pieces of rhetoric if you ask me. He did redefine Jesus in them after all. Paul's epistles are like today's media, spinning the facts a certain way to promote the cause of those in power, read Romans 13 for an example of him standing up for TPTB.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

He did redefine Jesus in them after all.

How do you know that the gospels didn't "redefine" Jesus, after the original version of Jesus was recorded by Paul?
You don't, so stop with the ignorant Paul bashing.

a reply to: jmdewey60

So you trust Paul over Jesus' supposed disciples? You trust a man who claims to have never walked with Jesus over those who did? Paul quotes Jesus one time in all of his 13 epistles, ONE TIME.

How could those who directly quoted him redefine who he was when Paul only quotes him once and sets up all these guidelines on how to believe and what to believe? Seems to me the one who doesn't quote him and sets rules and guidelines about him is the one who probably redefined him.

Would Jesus have considered those who killed him and his followers God's servants for their own good? Would Jesus consider the authorities burning Christians at the stake and throwing them to the lions as doing a service to them? Because Paul did apparently.

Romans 13
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

I wonder if Paul kept telling himself this while the authorities nailed him to a cross? Was he thinking that he was doing something wrong by spreading the truth? Because the authorities wouldn't have held terror against him for doing something right, at least according to his own words.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You trust a man who claims to have never walked with Jesus over those who did?

That sounds silly to me.
Have you ever read the gospels?
Where does a gospel writer claim to be in these scenes described in them?

I wonder if Paul kept telling himself this while the authorities nailed him to a cross?

OK, how do you know that anything like this ever happened?

a reply to: jmdewey60

John 1
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Here's one example of John claiming to be a witness.

So you disagree that Christians were persecuted under Roman rule? You disagree that Paul was killed by Romans? That Jesus was killed by Romans? You disagree with the overwhelming evidence of Christian persecution by the authorities during antiquity?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Here's one example of John claiming to be a witness.

That may be where the gospel gets its name from but it is talking about John the Baptist, not the writer.

So you disagree that Christians were persecuted under Roman rule? You disagree that Paul was killed by Romans? That Jesus was killed by Romans? You disagree with the overwhelming evidence of Christian persecution by the authorities during antiquity?

Yest to all of those.
I suggest you read the book, The Wars of the Jews by Josephus.
There were a lot of people killed as a result of the rebellion against the Romans.
The ancient secular writers did not have a standard terminology to separate the rebels following false messiahs from Christians.

a reply to: jmdewey60

1 John 1
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

John claims to have known, seen, an touched Jesus.

What about the authorities killing Paul for doing what was right? Was he actually doing what was wrong since the authorities killed him? And the Roman persecution of Christians? Were they also doing something wrong for the authorities to hold terror against them? According to Paul they were.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

John claims to have known, seen, an touched Jesus.

He was talking about the Logos.
I realize that Trinitarians have hijacked the Logos to support their theory, changing it to mean, Jesus, but it isn't really what the writer of the "John" letters was talking about.
He is saying that a lot of people shared this experience of having a heavenly revelation of the truth, the truth that gives eternal life, which is that God does dwell with man in a spiritual sense. Prophecies come true in a real sort of way, for those who were in those times that created the church to start with.

What about the authorities killing Paul for doing what was right?

You are living in a delusional construct.

The Bible does not record Paul's death.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: jmdewey60

1 John 1
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

John claims to have known, seen, an touched Jesus...

John ? it says "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim"

So this is writen by several witnesses !

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

John claims to have known, seen, an touched Jesus.

He was talking about the Logos.
I realize that Trinitarians have hijacked the Logos to support their theory, changing it to mean, Jesus, but it isn't really what the writer of the "John" letters was talking about...

Logos became Jesus, God's word materialized !

a reply to: Ove38

Logos became Jesus, God's word materialized !

This wasn't talking about the birth of the baby Jesus.

It was talking about John the Baptist having the Logos that he proclaimed, then it spreading out to Jesus and immediately to his disciples, who then and there became His disciples after having followed John the Baptist.

a reply to: jmdewey60

So the Roman government never harmed anyone innocent, only people who deserved it.?

Whether Paul was killed in the way tradition states or not, it doesn't take away the fact that what he says in Romans 13 is 100% false and always has been ever since "authorities" were invented, including at the time of Paul writing Romans. He was thrown in jail on more than one occasion according to his epistles, is that not a form of the authorities "holding terror" against Paul for doing what the bible says is right?

Isn't all the historical and universally accepted evidence in favor of Rome torturing and killing Christians pretty much proof that the first passage in Romans 13 is 100% wrong in every way? How could a man inspired by God and the Holy Spirit get something so wrong?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Isn't all the historical and universally accepted evidence in favor of Rome torturing and killing Christians pretty much proof that the first passage in Romans 13 is 100% wrong in every way?

It may have been back in the 1700's, but it isn't now.
That has something to do with the erroneous 1800 late dating of Revelation, to try to match the time of its writing to when they think these persecutions were at their height.
Paul would have been trying to avert what happened to the Jewish Zealots from happening to the Christians.
I think you are reading propaganda that is very old and hopelessly outdated.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Aren't god's teachings timeless though? Why would he inspire someone to write something that he knew would end up being wrong? And within a few years time at that? Revelation has nothing to do with Paul's epistles either so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

I think you're the one reading outdated propoganda and buying into it. Paul's epistles are pure propoganda.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why would he inspire someone to write something that he knew would end up being wrong?

I don't think it was wrong.
You do, I think, because you don't understand the situation back then, or what Paul was saying.

a reply to: jmdewey60

What was the situation? That Christians were being persecuted by the Roman authorities. What does Paul say about the authorities? That they didn't bear their swords against those who do good.

So going by Paul's teachings the authorities bore their swords against Christians because they were wrongdoers. What were Christians doing that was wrong exactly? Or is this a fantasy history where Christians weren't really persecuted at all?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What was the situation? That Christians were being persecuted by the Roman authorities.

Can you cite your sources for this?
I doubt that you can from anything less than two hundred year old opinions.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Read history and Google Nero.

You believe in a 2,000 year old opinion of some historically obscure man named Paul yet you require actual sources for something that proves him wrong? There seems to be a double standard here.

You're denying Christian persecutions that are historically verifiable in order to keep Paul "right" within your own mind. That's a symptom of cognitive dissonance.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You're denying Christian persecutions that are historically verifiable . . .

Just saying that they are verifiable, is not the same thing as verifying it.
Hundreds of years ago, around 1600, when it became very popular to write books (printing presses were new and they needed material to print) about Christian persecutions, they would find descriptions of someone called "Christ" and say, "Aha!, they must be talking about Christians", when in fact they were talking about rebel Jews following the latest "messiah" who would lead them against the Romans.
We understand that now, with more precise methods of studying history, rather than going with whatever was the most sensational to sell books.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Care to site some sources on your theory there? Or is this just your opinion?

You say I'm living in a delusional construct, I'd have to say the contrary is true.