Was the apostle Paul a wolf in sheep's clothing?

a reply to: Akragon

I've never had a teacher... so feel free to assume the role its quite rare that anyone is able to teach me about the early years of Christianity, but it happens on occasion...

You forgot to say please.
You will find your answer towards the very end of the video. There is a "Watch Video" in red -- Click on that and scroll to the last portion.
www.cepher.net...

a reply to: Seede

that is not any kind of valid answer...

One can not teach anything by pointing to bloody youtube bro....

geez...

IF you know of something I don't... just say it...

please

a reply to: Seede

The reason you don't really know is that you probably have not read the right book.

LOL!!!

THAT is hilarious. Just saying. That ^^ is truly hilarious.

I also agree that Paul was a false messenger for Christianity.

Yes, Paul never met Jesus during his lifetime. He often conflicted with Jesus' actual disciples. And he only encountered Peter three times, and in one of those encounters he upbraids Peter in public, the very man to whom Jesus supposedly gave the keys to the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19). So, it's quite ironic that the "canonical" New Testament contains so much more of Paul's writing than any actual disciple of Jesus.

Along with deviating the fledgling Church away from fundamental lifestyle disciplines, Paul's effect on Christianity was to transform it from an internal spiritual practice into an external devotional worship instead.

a reply to: Akragon

that is not any kind of valid answer... One can not teach anything by pointing to bloody youtube bro....

I am not a teacher and have never pretended to be. I gave you a source and it's your prerogative to at least listen to the source before you think that the source is invalid or valid. The teacher is a Hebrew scholar and teacher in good academia standing and if wrong then perhaps you could teach me otherwise.

a reply to: Wildezword

I also agree that Paul was a false messenger for Christianity. Yes, Paul never met Jesus during his lifetime. He often conflicted with Jesus' actual disciples. And he only encountered Peter three times, and in one of those encounters he upbraids Peter in public, the very man to whom Jesus supposedly gave the keys to the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19). So, it's quite ironic that the "canonical" New Testament contains so much more of Paul's writing than any actual disciple of Jesus. Along with deviating the fledgling Church away from fundamental lifestyle disciplines, Paul's effect on Christianity was to transform it from an internal spiritual practice into an external devotional worship instead.

Paul may not have shook hands with Jesus nor said good morning to Jesus but he most certainly has heard him preaching and had seen him in the Sanhedrin. Does that really count as being a disciple of Jesus? Do you have to have met Jesus to be a disciple of Jesus? If so then there are a lot of people in deep trouble.

You say that Paul often had conflict with the disciples. Did you mean Apostles? In either case can you cite these often conflicts after his transformation? Paul met and was approved by the Apostles and disciples of the first Christians. Peter loved him and said as much. If Peter was (as you suggest) the head of the church then is that not good enough for you or was Peter wrong too? Luke wrote acts as well and in Acts Paul is mentioned over 120 times and with nothing but love. When you condemn Paul then you are in effect saying that both Peter and Luke are also wrong.

Paul had no influence in the first century synagogue. James the just was the president (Nasi) and Peter and John were the second and third in command. Jame held that position well over two decades and was murdered shortly before Rome sacked Jerusalem in 70 CE. Paul was an evangelist and had nothing to say or do in the synagogue (church) so to say that he influenced the church in any way is not true.

Now as to agreeing with these Paul bashers and bashees that Paul was a false messenger for Christianity, would you also say that Peter and Luke were like minded? Don't be foolish.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TheJourney

But he claims to "walk in the Spirit and not the flesh". If he walks in the Spirit, it goes to reason that he is spiritual, no? Yet he clearly says "I am unspiritual", I don't see how you came to that conclusion personally.

"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin". He doesn't imply what you have said in any way.

Romans 7 starts by saying law is something which is bound to life. And then giving an example of a wife being obligated to her husband, unless her husband should die, then that obligation ceases to be. Then he says being bound to Christ makes us unbound to the law in a similar way. He then says that sin only has meaning in relationship to the law. Then, Romans 7:6. "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." So he's talking about spiritual re-birth, where something about being re-born to spiritual rather than materialistic existence changes the way we relate to the world, our actions, and how they are judged. Verse 7 again elucidates his point, that all concepts of 'sin' are dependent on the notion of a 'law,' which results from materialistic rather than spiritual existence.

He's really being quite philosophically profound for this being biblical. You're really mis-interpreting the whole thing, being simplistic about it, not trying to understand the context and concept he is presenting. I should just quote verses 9-11 here. "For I was alive without the law once: but when the comandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." So, he brings up the notion of an initial purity. Think of Jesus' quote, 'Unless you should become like these little children, you shall in no way enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' And that it was the very introduction of the notion of 'commandments,' and really by implication all dualistic conceptions, which necessarily brought about the negative. So, the very effort towards goodness and life, creates badness and death. Very Taoist.

Now here is where we get into the verses you are using, which now with context we can make better sense of it than 'Paul just blatantly admitted he is bad and unspiritual, why do people still believe in him?' Verse 13. "Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceedingly sinful." See the overt use of paradox and polarity. He's using paradox and polarity as a mechanism, to paint a picture and demonstrate a point. You absolutely cannot understand this passage by selecting him using one end of a sort of dialectic as if that is the ultimate meaning of the passage. It is the next verse, 14, where he says 'We know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.' In your translation, carnal is replaced with unspiritual. Which is basically fine, but the word used specifically implies relating to physical or bodily existence.

So again. The notion of law creates the notion of goodness. The very notion of goodness creates badness, and thus the setting up of goodness creates the sin in mortal man. Thus he is unspiritual, due to the fact of the existence of 'the law' which defines spirituality. So this whole passage is about the initial purity that exists prior to the setting up of duality, which is inherent to material existence. Thus he advocates spiritual re-birth, as did Jesus, whereby this duality is transcended. Throughout the whole chapter he utilizes dialectics to demonstrate how the notion of law, goodness, and life, creates sin, badness, and death. Thus he says in his attempts to do good, he does bad. He uses himself as an example of the mechanisms of this dialectic. So this is all really quite a philosophically provocative chapter, not how you have presented it.

a reply to: Seede

I am not a teacher and have never pretended to be. I gave you a source and it's your prerogative to at least listen to the source before you think that the source is invalid or valid. The teacher is a Hebrew scholar and teacher in good academia standing and if wrong then perhaps you could teach me otherwise.

I don't consider youtube videos a source of anything aside from entertainment for the most part...

Plus... You were talking about what happened to Paul... the guy in your video restored the books of the bible from Hebrew versions of them... that doesn't explain what happen to paul because his fate isn't recorded in the bible... it comes from external sources well after he lived... and Ignatius is the earliest source as far as I know... which was 50+ years after Paul disappeared... he was reported to have been beheaded, which I don't believe...

and as far as Paul meeting Jesus is concerned... theres not a shred of evidence showing Paul ever met, or even saw Jesus... IF he did see him at the very least... he would have mentioned it without a doubt...

Even though Paul wrote about how bad it is to brag... the fact is.... he was a braggart... and did it regularly... he writes about how he suffered more then any other, how he worked harder then anyone... and how all his travels were for Christ's sake... even that he was a "spiritual Father" which was strictly against the rules of the man he claimed to learn everything from... which is quite obviously a lie... he would have loved to have been able to add the fact that he saw Jesus preach at one point in his life to said resume.... but he didn't

The fact is Paul was a very intelligent man... very educated in greek philosophy, and theology... and he was a Pharisee so he knew the scriptures backwards... and he could clearly see a trend happening after the death of Jesus... Christianity was emerging on the scene... and Paul knew that IF he used the name of Jesus... he would have the following he desired...

Saying he actually saw him is baseless speculation... but that seems to be the norm when it comes to Christianity

I believe some verses were added to the Bible during it's assembly such as Mark16:18 (snakes and poisons will not hurt us). I wonder if the church elite added Matt 16:18-19 to the Bible about 300AD (ie, Jesus' church founded on Peter and Peter given the Keys to Heaven etc). Peter wanted to keep the faith Jewish and Paul wanted to save the world. Paul had a lot more to do with the creation of the church than Peter. I see the Key to Heaven being the forgiveness of sins which I don't believe was granted to Peter, priests or the Pope. I have watched a lot of Youtube testimonies and I never see Peter coming to people, escorting them or meeting them in Heaven; it's always Jesus.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: rebelv

Paul called himself an apostle on many occasions.

2 Timothy 1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, in keeping with the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus

Yet he says he didn't deserve to be called one.

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.

If Paul was meant to be an apostle then why did the other apostles not choose him in Acts?

Good call on that one. I studied the bible extensively,
but that was many years ago, and I studied it from a
Gnostic perspective, since I am a Gnostic.

I could've sworn Paul wrote that he didn't deserve to be called
a disciple.

Memory is going on me I guess, or I confused it with another
verse.

Thanks for calling me on that one.

Rebel 5

Paul was a man who makes mistakes but would someone against God teach this? God is love, so where there is love there is God and as John The Apostle says he who knows love knows God and as PAUL said "pursue Love, love never fails".

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.




The Law Paul spoke of was Old Testament but Jesus says the true law and prophets is to do to others as you would have them do to you (Mat 7:12).

a reply to: arpgme

You seem to think that someone who speaks truth cannot speak lies as well. The best lies have truth mixed in with them, this is how the best cons are successful, they mix truth with lies. Paul was a con-man, speaking of love to open you up to him and then inserting lies after he opens you up to said teachings on love.

Just because someone speaks of love in a great way doesn't mean they aren't lying to you about other things. Even preachers talk about the importance of love, yet their preaching also comes with lies to make you subservient to them. It is no different with Paul.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

How do you know he wasn't just confused? How many religious people who really do have kind intentions have contradicting beliefs with realizing?

a reply to: arpgme

How do you know he WAS confused? Why would he tell us to love others and to pursue love then say that we are incapable of doing good? Was he telling us that love (doing good) was unattainable? Then why pursue it if we can never grasp it?

If he was truly a follower of Jesus, he would have realized that doing good IS possible, yet he says it isn't. He even says that doing evil is to agree that the law is good. Whether it is the OT law or Jesus' law he was speaking of doesn't matter. He said the law in the OT stood against us, so how is that law good in any way? If Jesus' law is good, then how is doing the opposite to agree with it?

Paul is the antichrist, which is why he says he speaks for Jesus but contradicts him on everything except love. He used love to open people up to his false teachings.

Either you believe God can protect his word the bible or you don't, I for one believe he can and did. Thus Paul's writings in the New Testament stand, like them or not.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

He can protect a book but not his children? That's illogical. If he can protect a book from corruption then why not people too? Is his book more precious to him than his children?

If protecting his children from corruption is somehow taking away their free-will then he took away the free-will of those who wrote and compiled the bible we have today.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Thanks for your research. I'm sure there are many of these cryptic occult similarities that Paul invented so that some of the few persons deep within knowledge could learn all of the secrets.

I will share one thing, just for everyone to gain a perspective on just who Paul was.

Paul was said to be, in his time, and this could be argued of course, but Paul was said to be the greatest philosopher of his time. He was known in the world at the time of Jesus, to be one of the greatest philosophical thinkers the world had. He was recognized for this. To say Paul was famous in the near ancient world is an understatement. He was not some learned man coming out of the woodwork.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Following that logic you must believe every book that expanded on the bible since as well. So you need to be Mormon, Islamic and Christian at the same time for example. After all God's word can never be corrupted.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I had a huge awesome answer typed out for you and lost it all, when I went to put a picture in from my ATS files


It's a valid question, but maybe you need to search for your own answers.
I would start with reading Weeds Among The Wheat
and finish with The Narrow Gate, A Tree And It's Fruit, A Warning

Meditate on that.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


This OP is rather comical really. The conclusions your reach based on the information you provide amounts to a wild hack job. I have seen several threads, many more than the primes rates, on this idea about Paul and NONE of them represent anything that looks like research.