The Genesis Paradox

Whoo boys....so much to answer to, but it would take pages.
Let me say this, Paul contradicted Jesus so many times, it's ridiculous. I mean no offense to those who think he's "legit'. It's just that I did my homework on him, and let's just say, he's not who he claimed (aka...an apostle).
Maybe tomorrow when I have some time I'll tell you why I think so. I will say one thing that stood out to me like a dang sore thumb (and this was before I ever got involved in a church, but was reading the bible vicariously on my own). By the way, my whole "conversion, HS baptism experience was alone in my living room).
So, the first thing that caught my attention was that Paul told his followers that they could eat meat sacrificed to idols. While Jesus, in Rev (somewhere) said it was like the teachings of Balaam and NOT to be done. So, here I am, a new believer, wondering why the heck Paul would contradict something Jesus explicitly said was a big "no-no".
That was the first thing. The other is his arrogance and misogynistic attitude towards women. Jesus never, and I mean never treated women like Paul.
Oh, and Paul claimed to be the (I think) the Corinthian congregations "Father". Jesus said call no man your "father". Those are just a few. I have many more.
Honestly though, it goes right back to the dichotomy I mentioned earlier. There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions all thorough the NT and the OT, that unless one is seriously trying to find them, you won't. You have to be willing to step outside the religious box you're in and truly investigate. Otherwise, you sound just like Mr. Typical...who is, sorry to say, "typical" for most Christians. Dude, I've been you. I really don't have a beef with you in particular...I just have a beef with the whole religious doctrine crapola. Other than that, you're probably cool. I know your heart is to defend what you think is true. Just like my heart is to poke holes in it, since I found many holes.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I'm assuming the post is directed at me. Therefore let me clarify.

I used to defend Paul against the bashers, I no longer do.

1) Misogyny: those come primarily from Ephesians, Colossians, I & II Timothy and Titus. All these are considered to be Pseudepigrapha, as in written by other parties while using the name of Paul. We tend to call that forgery these days.

2) Inconsistency with Acts. Acts is nothing more than a historical fiction.

3) Backsliding on Paul's own positions. Bingo. Where Neo Marcionites (those who believe that Jesus revealed a better god than the one found in the Old Testament) which once I was, Crypto-neo-Marcionite that is, appreciated Paul for his inclusiveness such as Galatians:

Galatians 3:28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Don't see misogyny there.

However, later on in his career, he wrote the Letter to the Romans with it's recurring terminology "To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile." a serious backsliding. It becomes obvious in such chapters as 11, and especially chapter 15 with what the Gentiles owe to the Jews, that his whole thought process had changed. And he goes by the post-exile version of the old testament god, the one who claims dominion over the whole Earth, and subservience (of slave or tribute paying sort) for all Gentiles to the exalted god of Jerusalem. Holy Moly!

So Crypto-neo-Marcionites really don't have a friend in Paul. That's why I don't defend him. Even though I will argue with Paul bashers who are equally not friends of neo-Marcionites, such as Noahide types of people, Talmudists basically since that's where the Noahide views come from.

So if Paul's god turns out to be the OT fellow, who's to say that the god of Jesus isn't also some version of the OT dude?

In balance, I would rather claim no connection to Jesus if that connection is a connection to OT god. That's where I am, claiming no connection.

If an American reads wise things written by a Korean, should she or he become Korean and seek adoption into the family to prove their appreciation? That would be absurd. If he doesn't become Korean, is he a hater? I doubt it.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Since you're interested in slapping down some research... please note King Solomon was Genghis Khan... as when someone was "christened" it was proper to give them a christian name. No different when one is concidered to recieve transmission of the lamp or enlightenment in buddhism to recieve a buddhist name of that lineage.

Materialists chase blood lines, and spiritualists share names... so when hunting lineage one goes by son of the lamp passing not that by paternal birth.

Bare in mind the person does not necessarily have to be the one mentioned to carry such a name, and also bear in mind calendars were not standardized as some went by solar, some went by lunar and some went by venus... so our time lines are vastly screwed up for quite a few characters trying to pull a standard.

Of course carbon dating etc if the person is known can get a good idea of when these timelines coincided to be able to recalculate to get a more accurate dating between all the varying calendars and if they co-incide or do not... it's likey they vary by figure sometimes by a very small or very large number. As evidenced by the whole 2012 and everyone trying to calculate a Bhaktun to accuracy with the very sophisticated tools we have today... so back then? How close... please note they can't be standardised unless kept track of individually as the calulation changes every single time their specific "year" based on something else changes and different.

So you can't say ok in whatever calendar it's 2016 and in this one it's 2142 or what ever then say in ten years it'll be 2026 and 2152... that obviously does not work at all because the systems are based on two entirely different things.

a reply to: pthena

interesting position...

OF course you know Marcion was a huge fan of Paul... considering him the main guy, almost more so then Jesus

a reply to: Akragon

Yes, but: Neo allows great innovation.

At the time I proposed the term Crypto-neo-Marcionite, about three years ago, I was posing as a non-Christian believer in Jesus. Mainly because I had many friends who were such.

Poser? Yes I was. But, that was because I had backslidden from my pure heathenism. Jesus only occupied my mind while discussing matters with others, not while I sat alone with my thoughts. I may not be the only person to suffer such a thing.

Only quite recently have I decided to at least attempt to be consistent with myself, whether alone or conversing with others. Most likely I will adopt another role to play whether I do it consciously or unconsciously. Such is my condition.

a reply to: pthena

lol i like it... very interesting...

but why choose Marcion of all the gnostic (pseudo or otherwise) thought available?

Dude rejected three of the 4 gospels... and went with luke, who was a friend of Paul

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: pthena

lol i like it... very interesting...

but why choose Marcion of all the gnostic (pseudo or otherwise) thought available?

Dude rejected three of the 4 gospels... and went with luke, who was a friend of Paul

I could be wrong, but I think he was anti-Semitic.

a reply to: DISRAELI

a reply to: birdxofxprey
Yes I have, but I will re-phrase it. The nature of evil is to be "that which is outside God's will".

Quite true.
Not speaking for you but clarifying what I have observed, would it be fair to say that the nature of evil is to be "that which is outside God's perfect will?" Would it also be fair to say that God's permissive will was realized when He created evil? I am a bit unclear on this.

I assume that as the heavenly host violated the Creator's perfect will, the original sin was the creation of evil which was embraced by the serpent. Is this the original sin? If so then the original sin was instilled in the creation by not the tree or the serpent but by the celestial creation first.

Another question that may ask. Is not this sin or evil a spirit or if not how would you describe it?

originally posted by: Seede
Not speaking for you but clarifying what I have observed, would it be fair to say that the nature of evil is to be "that which is outside God's perfect will?" Would it also be fair to say that God's permissive will was realized when He created evil? I am a bit unclear on this.

I like the definition in your first sentence. It seems to me that it rules out the idea that God "created evil". It sems to imply that "evil" is nothing more than what people do when they step outside his will.
So the nearest he gets to "creating" it is that he allows the development of people who can step outside his will, if they so choose.

We don't actually need to involve a separate spirit in this. James says "Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire". James ch1 v14

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Akragon

Yes, but: Neo allows great innovation.

At the time I proposed the term Crypto-neo-Marcionite, about three years ago, I was posing as a non-Christian believer in Jesus. Mainly because I had many friends who were such.

Poser? Yes I was. But, that was because I had backslidden from my pure heathenism. Jesus only occupied my mind while discussing matters with others, not while I sat alone with my thoughts. I may not be the only person to suffer such a thing.

Only quite recently have I decided to at least attempt to be consistent with myself, whether alone or conversing with others. Most likely I will adopt another role to play whether I do it consciously or unconsciously. Such is my condition.

You are a trip...lol, and I mean that in a good way. It's really cool to know there are others out there who have similar conclusions as me.
Most of my friends are Christians. It's kinda hard to have a conversation about this stuff with them, and not have them look at you like you have a third eyeball....or want to run the other way....or sometimes they just get downright ugly, lol.
So, I gave up. They are good people and I care for them. I just don't fit in that circle anymore.
I like your quote at the bottom of your posts...."I reserve to myself the right to change my mind as radically and as frequently as I see fit". Gotta love that one, lol.


Oh, and in my original response regarding Paul...I meant to type "whooo boy"...not "whooo boys". LOL. Sorry bout that. I wasn't calling ya'll "boys".

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: pthena

lol i like it... very interesting...

but why choose Marcion of all the gnostic (pseudo or otherwise) thought available?

Dude rejected three of the 4 gospels... and went with luke, who was a friend of Paul

Just wanted you to know, Akragon, that your posts were one of the several that I related to when first finding this site. I was a lurker over a year before joining. I always enjoy your input.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Can you explain your reasoning for rejecting Paul? I mean in the context that John names false leaders/teachers but not Paul, that Peter calls him a beloved brother in Christ in his 2nd letter, written right before his execution. Or that Peter's direct understudy Clement doesn't reject Paul's epistles or doctrine and John's understudy Polycarp likewise doesn't condemn or speak about Paul in a rejecting manner. So what is the basis for your rejecting of Paul when the other NT writers don't, nor is there any condemnation of him in the 2nd century writings of John and Peter's direct disciples?

Can you share what information you have that Peter and John didn't have, nor did they teach to Clement and Polycarp? Here is Polycarp's most famous epistle to the Philippians: (read it, John's disciple quotes Paul and praises his teaching)

www.earlychristianwritings.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.earlychristianwritings.com...

a reply to: Akragon

choose Marcion of all the gnostic (pseudo or otherwise) thought available?

Purely for the name recognition. As in the whole list of heresies, Marcion's name stands for "Rejects the OT god and posits a better god." That's it. No need to adopt his canon of scripture or anything else he may have taught or is said to have taught.

The label I coined Crypto-neo-Marcion in a bizarre twist can actually be applied to very many Christians. Secretly, unbeknownst to themselves they have a very much more elevated view of God in their own imagination than what can be found in the Old Testament. But to actually admit it, or say it would be heresy.

In my native heathen tribalistic shamanistic thinking, I had no problem accepting Paul's Galatians version of the God of Abraham (I'm going to write Genesis a few times so that we can pretend that we aren't drifting the thread) In Genesis is Abraham's family/tribal/regional god who actually walks, talks, and eats with people. He does not pretend to be something bigger than what he is (no delusions of grandeur).

Paul, in Galatians, offers inclusion to Abraham and his deity through Jesus Christ (the seed). Not a problem with me. But, did he have the authority to be offering such a thing? It wasn't until just a little over a year ago when I was re-examining Romans that I realized that Paul was no longer writing about Abraham's god but rather the post-exile monotheist god. My rickety edifice collapsed.

Yeah, Genesis Paradox.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Can you explain your reasoning for rejecting Paul? I mean in the context that John names false leaders/teachers but not Paul, that Peter calls him a beloved brother in Christ in his 2nd letter, written right before his execution. Or that Peter's direct understudy Clement doesn't reject Paul's epistles or doctrine and John's understudy Polycarp likewise doesn't condemn or speak about Paul in a rejecting manner. So what is the basis for your rejecting of Paul when the other NT writers don't, nor is there any condemnation of him in the 2nd century writings of John and Peter's direct disciples?

Can you share what information you have that Peter and John didn't have, nor did they teach to Clement and Polycarp? Here is Polycarp's most famous epistle to the Philippians: (read it, John's disciple quotes Paul and praises his teaching)

www.earlychristianwritings.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Ever since I was filled with the HS many years ago, Paul totally irritated me. He not only contradicts Jesus, but himself as well. Like Pthena wrote a few posts back, Paul's message changed over time. I think he was used by the enemy to infiltrate and highjack the message that Jesus brought.
All three accounts of his "road to Damascus" blinding light conversion, are different.
You know there are only 12 apostles right? Paul would be 13. In Acts, chp. 1 vs. 21-26, the criteria for apostleship (or being a witness, basically) is written.

21 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.



So, in order to even be considered an apostle, you had to have been a witness to his ministry, his death and resurrection.
Paul wouldn't be included in that. He never met Jesus (except when he said he heard a voice claiming to be Jesus on the road to Damascus).
Paul was also arrogant. I mean, obnoxiously so. There are tons of other things, but here's the problem most believers have with even going to a place of "questioning Paul"....it means your "holy book" isn't infallible. Which threatens your whole religion. What's so sad is, Christians think this book HAS to infallible, in order for God to be God.
It's a book. A book written by men who are fallible. Do you not think there is a POSSIBILITY that you've been duped? What better way for a deceiver to deceive, than to infiltrate the very book Christians hold in such high esteem.
Just looking at the divisions in Christianity itself, with over 40,000 denominations, should tell you something.
Anyway, the place I started was here.......www.jesuswordsonly.com...
Much of what this guy found, I'd already found. He also dug out a whole bunch more. Anyway, if you are even willing to investigate it, check out his site. I read way more than that site though. I spent over 2 years obsessed with unraveling and unlearning all the indoctrination I'd had. I was relieved to find out my apprehensions with Paul weren't "crazy"....and there are tons of people all over who saw it too.
You should read the reviews on the above site. A plethora of people responded to him. All of them were grateful for his research and that they had found it.
If you are content with what you have now, then don't worry about it.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

It's kinda hard to have a conversation about this stuff with them, and not have them look at you like you have a third eyeball....or want to run the other way....or sometimes they just get downright ugly, lol.

That's one of the functions of social media and forums. It helps (in my opinion) to remain as anonymous as possible, It's like talking to a counselor who doesn't know you or your family, therefore no need to lie or pretend.

...."I reserve to myself the right to change my mind as radically and as frequently as I see fit".

The butterfly totem is quite often associated with transformation to a higher order. Sounds nice ...
but:

He makes his way out of the cocoon,
spreads his wings,
which immediately are caught by hurricane force winds.

"crying out loud! This is like being tossed about by every wind of doctrine!"

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Akragon

choose Marcion of all the gnostic (pseudo or otherwise) thought available?

Purely for the name recognition. As in the whole list of heresies, Marcion's name stands for "Rejects the OT god and posits a better god." That's it. No need to adopt his canon of scripture or anything else he may have taught or is said to have taught.

The label I coined Crypto-neo-Marcion in a bizarre twist can actually be applied to very many Christians. Secretly, unbeknownst to themselves they have a very much more elevated view of God in their own imagination than what can be found in the Old Testament. But to actually admit it, or say it would be heresy.

In my native heathen tribalistic shamanistic thinking, I had no problem accepting Paul's Galatians version of the God of Abraham (I'm going to write Genesis a few times so that we can pretend that we aren't drifting the thread) In Genesis is Abraham's family/tribal/regional god who actually walks, talks, and eats with people. He does not pretend to be something bigger than what he is (no delusions of grandeur).

Paul, in Galatians, offers inclusion to Abraham and his deity through Jesus Christ (the seed). Not a problem with me. But, did he have the authority to be offering such a thing? It wasn't until just a little over a year ago when I was re-examining Romans that I realized that Paul was no longer writing about Abraham's god but rather the post-exile monotheist god. My rickety edifice collapsed.

Yeah, Genesis Paradox.

I sit here and read your posts and get the best chuckles out of them. I like how your brain works, lol.

a reply to: DISRAELI

So the nearest he gets to "creating" it is that he allows the development of people who can step outside his will, if they so choose.

Exactly the thought that was in my mind but was unable to completely grasp. The KJV uses the word create in describing evil and was confusing create as an act separated and independent from allowing.
Thank you and as always a great teacher.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

You're didn't even address my questions. Specifically, why do you think Peter affirms Paul as a beloved brother, and why didn't John write about his as a false apostle and a deceiver by name when he names others, and why does Peter and John's direct disciples Polycarp and Clement quote from and speak highly of Paul? Wouldn't Peter or John teach their respective understudies that Paul was a false teacher?

a reply to: pthena

That's one of the functions of social media and forums. It helps (in my opinion) to remain as anonymous as possible, It's like talking to a counselor who doesn't know you or your family, therefore no need to lie or pretend.



LOL!!

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Also pay close attention in Acts 13 where Saulus (whom they call «st. Paul») calls a person «Son of the Devil» while his true name reads lit. «Son of Jesus». Saulus then carries on to blind «Son of Jesus» (revenge?). It's unclear what happens after that, but apparently, «Son of Jesus» gets help from his friend the Roman official, Sergius Paulus, who seems to offer Saulus his upperclass Roman family name at some point-- supposedly in exchange for «Son of Jesus» to get his vision back. The book never tells whether «Son of Jesus» ever regained his eyesight again, but from that incident onwards, Saulus changes his name into Paulus, or Paul in modern English Bible-translations.

PS: Saulus claims to be «from Tarsos». In Greek that's Strong's 2019 Ταρσοῦ, but the old NT scribes must have noticed, so instead of writing Ταρσοῦ, they wrote the Latinised Strong's 5018 Greek Ταρσεὺς, and the form Gr. Ταρσοῦ isn't used in NT although it would be fully adequate several places. Maybe because there is a direct link between the word Gr. Ταρσοῦ and 666? For if you exchange its letters with Hebrew ones, you get a Hebrew number תרסו and the number is 666. Tav 400, Resh 200, Samek 60 and Vav 6. I think John of Patmos was speaking about Saulus AKA «st. Paul» when he spoke of the number of the Beast and the Fall of Rome.