Paul was a murderer

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Mark had to have been written before Peter's martyrdom. The author was John Mark who wrote Peter's gospel account for him as his amanuenses. Like how in modern times a secretary would write a letter dictated to him pr her by a supervisor.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

No, Paul persecuted "Christians" (Essenes) then turned around and perverted their message into that of Christianity, where faith in Jesus is all you need, not works.

No works = Earth. Instead of putting forth the effort to fix the world, people have taken the easy way out by only believing in Jesus and not doing good works. See where faith has gotten us? Nowhere fast.

Essenes weren't Christians! They were ultra observant Jews following the Torah, and adding a crapton in addition too it. Josephus speaks about them in detail.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You mean the same John Mark that traveled with Paul as well? You still didn't address the date discrepancies. How could Luke's gospel have been completed around 62 CE when Mark didn't finish his until around 70 CE? His was the first, so how could Luke's come before his?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I never said Essenes were Christians. I'm saying that Jesus was an Essene. As you stated earlier, the term Christian wasn't adopted until later. Essenes were Jews, Jesus was a Jew! John the Baptist was Essene and paved the way for Jesus, so what's so hard to believe about Jesus being an Essene?

What's so bad about the Essenes adding stuff to their beliefs? Didn't Paul do the same thing with Jesus?

My belief is that Yeshua (Jesus) taught obedience to Torah, as did Shaul (Paul).

The only difference is that Paul was teaching to the gentiles, and had to start at square one, explaining how to be saved. The Jews did not need to know this, as they already had it. To be saved, one must have faith in God. Your obedience is merely the sign that you have faith. He taught this to the consternation of the Pharisees, who taught (erroneously) that obedience to the law is what saves.

In simple Biblical terms, our life is like those in the Exodus. We are in Egypt (sin) and God calls us out. If we have faith, we will heed the call. We then pass through the water (mikveh/baptism), and God gives us His instruction on how to live a life sanctified to Him. If we turn to a life of disobedience, we have lost our faith. If we continue in obedience, proving our faith, we will enter the Promised Land.

Yeshua taught perfect obedience to those who already had faith. Shaul taught faith that leads to obedience to those who had neither.

If Yeshua was the Messiah, He could not teach against Torah (see Deuteronomy 13), and could not add or take away from it. If He did, He is not the Messiah. Shaul has to agree with Yeshua, or He was a false prophet (again, Deuteronomy 13).

And for those Christians who claim we are in a New Covenant of only "love," go ahead and read Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 8:10 (which dovetails out of Deuteronomy 30)

And if you decide that the "spirit" leads you to not obey Torah, then I would recommend reading 1 John 4:1, followed by Ezekiel 36:27.





Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You are a good Jew aren't you . It is perfectly obvious now . Is it your job to attack the Gentile religion per the protocols . Paul's ministry has not changed the Gospel of Christ . You can not give an example of it can you . And don't quote me another Semitic writing trying to prove it . You have no axe to grind ?
Boy it really rubs the Jews hind end raw that the Gentile was made a people by God because they rejected Christ .

Originally posted by Shimri
My belief is that Yeshua (Jesus) taught obedience to Torah, as did Shaul (Paul).

The only difference is that Paul was teaching to the gentiles, and had to start at square one, explaining how to be saved. The Jews did not need to know this, as they already had it. To be saved, one must have faith in God. Your obedience is merely the sign that you have faith. He taught this to the consternation of the Pharisees, who taught (erroneously) that obedience to the law is what saves.

In simple Biblical terms, our life is like those in the Exodus. We are in Egypt (sin) and God calls us out. If we have faith, we will heed the call. We then pass through the water (mikveh/baptism), and God gives us His instruction on how to live a life sanctified to Him. If we turn to a life of disobedience, we have lost our faith. If we continue in obedience, proving our faith, we will enter the Promised Land.

Yeshua taught perfect obedience to those who already had faith. Shaul taught faith that leads to obedience to those who had neither.

If Yeshua was the Messiah, He could not teach against Torah (see Deuteronomy 13), and could not add or take away from it. If He did, He is not the Messiah. Shaul has to agree with Yeshua, or He was a false prophet (again, Deuteronomy 13).

Messiah closed out parts of the law that only he could fullfill, sacrifices/atonement ect i.e. His meaning to Peter to "call no more unclean what I have made clean" was that He had now made atonement for all of man and here is where the door opens.

The rest of the law...thou shalt not ect....were confirmed by Paul in his writting on the law..."Is the Law good? In every way" but we are no more justified by the law or justified by it as the Jews held themselves to be justifed by it. Paul taught "the law of the spirit"...and that even the gentiles in their natural spiritual condition understand the law...thou shalt not ect.

In history however the Jews as well as the other Hebrew tribes were justifed by faith, the faith of Abraham. Paul was simply going behind the law to show where the real foundation justification was palced. Even the Jews when arguing with Jesus, as they could not condemn by the law, went behind the law to Abraham to justify themselves but their justification was after the flesh, bloodlines and not by faith which was Abrahams real justification.

We are no more like the Exodus but as the prophet said.."In those days they shall no longer say blessed is the lord that brought us out of egypt but bless is the Lord that brought us out of the North country". In the same way at one time exodus was a spritual meaning so now the return form our failure to keep the law and out condemnation and scattering do to this failure have come to an end and we are now restored out of that status as outcast.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

You need to get a KJV bible there is a substantial difference between the bible you quote and the KJV.
Still I see what you are trying to propagate but if thats all you have you have failed to prove your point .
Funny thing is that you have attacked the Gentile Apostle and not Peter who had to be corrected because of changing Christs mission by diluting the Gospel with Jewish Tradition . I can see why Paul would be attacked . The Jews want to destroy the Gospel of Jesus and it's transmission to the Gentile . This would help defeat the Gentile connection to Christianity and ease the worry that the Globalist Banksters have that Jesus freaks will oppose their plan and the Mark of the Beast .

Peter didnt dilute the gospel with Jewish traditions. He had a situation where he gave into the fear of the "jewish" christians by seperating himself from the gentiles when these guys were in town. In truth Paul did more real mixing of the jewish traditons into christinity....like personaly circumsizing one of his own converts to make the "jewish" converts happy.

In the case where Paul blasts Peter it is certainly because Peter had blasted Paul for going against the first church council orders not to circumsize gentiles. Paul was simply pointing out that not even Peter was totaly free from "jewish" pressure and so shouldnt be so hard on him for his circumsizing. Paul later abandoned circumsizing saying it didnt matter if you were or were not. In fact he later had strong words for the jewish christain circumsizers but it cannot be denied that Paul was the one that let that cat out of the bag.

Peter gets a bad rap because of Pauls wieght in christainity and the fact that Pauls piont on Peter is right there in clear sight. However a good study of the early documents show that the early church and mostly at Peters words had waved off the need to have the gentiles circumsized. This was the first order on the issue and Paul went right out and disregarded this directive. This resulted in real problems that grew into a monster. Paul made it clear that he didnt have to listen to Peter. This made Peters position weak here as Paul was a respected and learned man and ex-pharisee of note. Thus the flood gates began to open in the chursh at Jerusalem for acommodation. This was Pauls fault and we find Peter reacting, to the pressure that was mounting, by seperating himself from the gentiles and not wanting to eat non kosher food.

So we have to ask then....what was Pauls problem with the circumsision? We see Jesus still trying to communicate, vision, with Peter here but we dont have any such record as to jesus telling Paul not to circumsize. Why is that? Well look who was writing the early church history....Pauls pal Luke and if anything like a communication Peter had was given paul on circumsision it may have been edited. A lot of Luke does look more like a PR spread for Paul than some may like to think. Paul may have been an overeducated elite prick who thought that those fisherman Jesus ran around with, that were hand picked by the Father Himself, were somehow an embarrassment to the effort.

Now Paul later called himself the apostle to the gentiles. But if we look it was Peter who was the apostle to the gentiles and the first defender of the gentiles. And in reality it was Paul who was the first apostle to the Jews. It was Pauls idea that Peter would be the apostle to the jews. Paul considering his education in the ways should have been the apostle to the Jews and was in fact the first to try to accommodate the Jews.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

You do realize this thread is about Paul and not the gospels right?

The gospels were Jesus' words, not Paul's. I believe in the true gospel, the words of Jesus. That's the problem with some Christians, they consider Paul's epistles part of the gospels when they are not. I don't consider Paul's epistles good news, neither should anyone else.

He didn't say "gospels" (plural), he said "the" gospel, (singular and definite article specific).

We must consider here that it was the gosple writers that unpacked jesus from the old testment prophets. I dont simply mean the few well know examples but in fact almost the whole of the gospels are written with the OT in mind.

We know of Pauls great exploits, mars hill and the like. But in my estimation Peter demonstrated the greater wieght of apostolic authority when at Jerusalem the folks there at pentecost could hear what was being said in their own laguage. This was the same authority present that mixed the languages at the Tower of Babe now present with Peter. On that day thousands of Jews became christians in a stroke. Paul based his authority on a private vision and private teachings said to have been given him by Jesus. Peter even hits on this when he talks of his authority being and extention of the OT prophets.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

1 Corinthians 4
15 For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

He still calls himself father in the KJV. A father can only "begotten" someone.

Also, I covered Peter in my other thread on Paul. As I said in that thread, I think Peter and Paul were the same person, so me attacking Paul is me attacking Peter as well.

edit on 24-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

This above passage, in my opinion is just part of what looks like a large rift that developed in the early church. Peter and some of the others were considered the go to guys by many that had been converted by them. Paul seems to be trying to establish his position as prime mentor over those that he had brought into the fold. He even started calling it his gospel and put his brand on what he taught. There is a large body of evidence for this rift.

But no i cant see where you even get the idea that Paul and Peter were the same person.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I never said Essenes were Christians.

I'm saying that Jesus was an Essene. As you stated earlier, the term Christian wasn't adopted until later. Essenes were Jews, Jesus was a Jew! John the Baptist was Essene and paved the way for Jesus, so what's so hard to believe about Jesus being an Essene?

Sure Essenes were Jews, but not all Jews were Essene. Read Josephus' account of that sect. And neither Christ or JTB were Essene.

What's so bad about the Essenes adding stuff to their beliefs? Didn't Paul do the same thing with Jesus?

What did Jesus have to say about that in Mark 7?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You mean the same John Mark that traveled with Paul as well? You still didn't address the date discrepancies. How could Luke's gospel have been completed around 62 CE when Mark didn't finish his until around 70 CE? His was the first, so how could Luke's come before his?

"Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."


Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.1, c. 180 AD


Also to note, read here about the problems of modern "scholarship".

reply to post by SimonPeter


Sure dude! I'm a Jew that doesn't believe in Yahweh! You got me!

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So you think a guy who wasn't born until 130 knew what happened in those days?

You're still not addressing how Luke could have finished his gospel by 62 CE when Mark's wasn't finished until around 70 CE. How do you explain that away?

reply to post by Logarock


They could have easily been the same person in my opinion. As long as you have a writer who's skilled in a certain field, you can create almost anything. Plutarch was a writer from around that time who shares MANY similarities between Luke, uncanny similarities.

Plutarch wrote a book called Parallel Lives. If anyone could have split Peter into several different people, it would have been Plutarch. Since Plutarch led a nearly identical life to Luke, and since Luke wrote about Paul's travels, I think Plutarch split him into at least 2 people.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


There is a long tradition of Jesus being portrayed as an Essene. He was, most likely, Essene, of the Nazarene sect that held the marriage covenent, as did Joseph and Mary. If not, Jesus most certainly did the 3 year stint of tutelage, as did Paul.

The Essenes claimed to have been founded by Moses, in the tradition of Samson, and their oath can be found in Numbers Chapter 6.

5. The Essenes required a person to commit to a three year study period, prior to acceptance into the Brotherhood. The Bible records that Paul (who wrote a large part of the Bible's New Testament) withdrew for a 3 year period just prior to beginning his preaching.

6. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes record that a man who had studied with them for a three year period, had betrayed them, and was spreading 'lies' about their faith. This person is simply referred to in these writings as "The Liar". The Bible and several other historical manuscripts record that there was much disagreement between Paul and some of the disciples and leaders of the early church. Paul was teaching that observance of certain Jewish customs or 'laws' was not a requirement for salvation. He defends himself in the Bible, claiming "I am NOT a liar!"
Link

Also

Eisenman shrewdly points out that the two Scrolls villains, the Liar and the Wicked Priest, are never identified with each other, and indeed they cannot be references to the same person, since the Liar is said to be a betrayer and defector from within the group, while the Wicked Priest is the enemy without. Eisenman's candidate for the Liar is Paul who repudiated the Law for which James and his Covenanters were zealots. Like the Tübingen School, Eisenman sees the Pseudo-Clementine literature as the refuge of important stray traditions which furnish clues to the relations between the parties of the early Christian movement. And there the James-Paul enmity, which Luke papers over but which peeps out between the paragraphs in Galatians, is on plain display
www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com...

The Essenes did not cut their hair or shave, which was not the fashionable norm of the day. They were also known to wear white clothing.



Jesus is almost always depicted unshaven, with long hair and in a white robe.

There is a lot of tell tale evidence of Jesus being Essene, For example, during his vision quest in the desert, he was said to have communed with angels. This is something that the Essenes were known for. The average Jew, Pharisee or Sadducees were not.

Other tell tale signs of Essene influence in Jesus' life are, the young man dressed in white at the tomb, after Jesus' supposed "resurrection," and when Jesus appeared to Mary at the tomb, she supposed him to be a "gardener." The only way this story makes sense is if Jesus' face was obscured by a bee keepers mask. The Essenes were known for their honey, and any good Essene gardener would also be a bee keeper.

The fact that he was given honey comb, when he asked for food, because he was hungry, is another Essene "clue."

The Bee in Religion
We have already touched upon the importance of the Anatolian city of Ephesus and its association with the Bee, including its name – the Bee, and its Bee goddess, Artemis. However, Ephesus was an important city in the development of Christianity as well, for not only did it house one of the seven churches of Asia, as listed in the ‘Book of Revelations’, but Paul spend several years there and the last house of the Virgin Mary is believed to have resided nearby. In fact, many believe the Gospel of John was written there. Yet perhaps the greatest revelation of all is that Artemis and her high priests of Ephesus were called Essenes, meaning King Bees.

The Essenes were a Jewish religious sect founded in the first century BC who flourished for roughly 300 years in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, and their base at Qumran produced one the important historical discoveries of the 20th century; the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were also Beekeepers, and the first association of the Essenes with Bees was in the 2nd century AD by a Greek traveler named Pausanias.

The Essenes, or King Bees as they were known, maintained the role of priestly officials and were the forefathers of Christianity. Even the Catholic Church referred to Jesus Christ as an Aetherial Bee, a name that symbolized the personification of the clear upper air breathed by the great Greek Olympians. In fact, the ‘Book of Luke’ (24, 41-43) confirms that the first food eaten by Christ after his resurrection was honey:
andrewgough.co.uk...

The Essenes were the first Christians, as they believed that Jesus was their re-born ascended master that promised to return, as the messiah.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Logarock

 

They could have easily been the same person in my opinion. As long as you have a writer who's skilled in a certain field, you can create almost anything. Plutarch was a writer from around that time who shares MANY similarities between Luke, uncanny similarities.

Plutarch wrote a book called Parallel Lives. If anyone could have split Peter into several different people, it would have been Plutarch. Since Plutarch led a nearly identical life to Luke, and since Luke wrote about Paul's travels, I think Plutarch split him into at least 2 people.

Peter writing style is totaly diffrent from Paul, the tone everything.

reply to post by windword


John the Baptist did not walk around in white garments. In fact christ made mention of John in the context of how if you want to see well dressed folks go look in the palaces. John wore leather as did the man he emulated.

And the Essenes have there foundations in the old School of the Prophets founded by Elijah or Samule. The Long haired boys were from the sect of the Nazarites which was set up before that. Now there are some points of similarities like no wine or strong drink but an important diffrence between Samson and the Baptist is that the angels in Johns case didnt tell his mom not to cut his hair as he did in samsons case. Also in Samsons case his parents were told not to cut his hair or give him strong drink in Johns case the angel said the he would not drink wine.

As well Jesus didnt keep the Nazarite vows. He drank and made wine, touched dead bodies ect. Jesus was a priest out of the "Melchizedek" order which had no established school or following. Jesus would not have been able to be limited to something so small as the Essene or Nazarite sect.

Also Paul did say he spent some time in the desert but he by no means said he spent it out at Mesada. Paul also advised the use of wine for health reasons.

reply to post by Logarock


Both talked about grace, salvation, and faith almost exclusively. They both introduced concepts never preached by Jesus, and both founded the church together.

Galatians 1
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and 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.

Why did Paul feel the need to say he wasn't lying about meeting with Peter? A liar usually tries to convince others he's not lying by saying he's not lying. There was no need for him yo say that, which leads me to believe that he WAS lying about something.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Yep I got you . Now you are trying to argue that the whole Gospel is suspect . You said you thought Peter an Paul were the same person . What now ? Esau I hated and Jacob I loved said God . Which one are you ?