Wolf of Benjamin and leaven of the Pharisees

a reply to: In4ormant


So you are saying that the 12 Apostles who were touched by the Holy Spirit, had to be educated by Paul? They were touched by the Holy Spirit and walked with Jesus in the flesh and they didn't know? Okay.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: In4ormant


So you are saying that the 12 Apostles who were touched by the Holy Spirit, had to be educated by Paul? They were touched by the Holy Spirit and walked with Jesus in the flesh and they didn't know? Okay.

Being a little presumptuous of Gods' plan for these people aren't we?

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: In4ormant


So you are saying that the 12 Apostles who were touched by the Holy Spirit, had to be educated by Paul? They were touched by the Holy Spirit and walked with Jesus in the flesh and they didn't know? Okay.

Being a little presumptuous of Gods' plan for these people aren't we?

No, I am not. God was perfectly capable of allowing Jesus to remain with the Apostles on earth to teach them everything needed. I believe Jesus did teach them everything needed. I can go scripture by scripture, in context and show you where Paul contradicts Jesus, if that is what you want.

a reply to: Khaleesi

Hi Khaleesi.

I don't think we've been properly introduced. I'm Pthena.

Now that the OP has been banned, would you like to alter the original thesis of the thread to one you can support wholeheartedly?

It might be better to abandon this thread. Decide what your thesis is, get all your supporting arguments lined up, and then start a new thread.

The preliminary research I've done indicates that I've been out of the loop too long. I've seen people with all sorts of nuances to certain positions. Positions I'm not familiar with. It sure isn't the 1980s anymore!

a reply to: pthena


Nice to meet you pthena. I didn't know the OP was banned. I'm not comfortable continuing in this thread, as I don't really know what his thesis was. I can assume I know from what I've already read but to be honest I'm not really sure. I'll consider starting a new thread. It may take me a day or two to formulate a post since I would need to gather some information and write a cogent post. Thanks. It's always nice to have a reasonable discussion/debate!

I will say this. Paul was more than likely not even from Benjamin. He was a pharisee and that means a Herodian Jew. Herod was an Edomite, and if you study into this you will see that Herod was all about removing the Judiates from any control.

Paul lied 3 times in his conversion experience as written in the bible. Paul taught contrary to Yeshua / Jesus. Paul taught lawlessness. All the controversies in the church come from Paul's teachings.

Khaleesi laid out very good examples of this from my article on Paul's Gospel vs. Jesus gospel.

There is a lot of historical information about the apostles from their early students. In fact, it is believed Paul attacked James in Jerusalem, and left him for dead.

How can you have the words of Yeshua saying, "Think not that I have come to change the law, I have come to fulfill it, and not one jot nor tittle of it shall pass (stop) until all things (end times prophesies) are fulfilled! So, if the law is still in effect, then how do you have Paul saying it's not? Oh, and I love how Paul used the same law (writings of Moses) to push what he wants upheld all while saying you're under grace!

Paul was Apollonius of Tyana. Look it up.

James wrote that Paul was a spouter of Lies in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Look it up!

Here is a fairly good short read about Paul. Paul

a reply to: Khaleesi

I'm not comfortable continuing in this thread, as I don't really know what his thesis was.

Paul bashing threads are a dime a dozen on ATS, I have yet to see one that actually backs up vague allegations.

I think that a reasonable argument against Paul would pretty much have to be something like a person's systematic theology contrasted to Paul. Different people have different theologies, so one person's problems with Paul should not be considered as the same or even supporting another person's problems with Paul.

I'd like to see a decent debate sometime.

The other thing I found Paul was guilty of, was taking verses from what we now call the OT, and twisting them or taking them out of context.
For example, in Romans 3 (which we've all heard many times from the pulpit) he condemns the whole world as being guilty before God. The famous quote of, "there is NONE righteous, not even one" is the backbone of Paul's whole thesis of "saved by grace". He also uses it to support the blood sacrifice that he made Jesus into. Since there are "none righteous", then only the blood of Jesus can save us from God's wrath, which also ties nicely in with the whole blood sacrifice theme from the OT, commanded by YHWH.
Ok, so I went to where Paul quoted from in the OT. Romans 3:10-18 was taken from Psalm 14.
Here is that Psalm in context.....

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable [a]deeds;
There is no one who does good.

2
The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Who seek after God.

3
They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one.



4
Do all the workers of wickedness not know,
Who eat up my people as they eat bread,
And do not call upon the Lord?

5
There they are in great dread,
For God is with the righteous generation.6
You would put to shame the counsel of the afflicted,
But the Lord is his refuge.

Paul conveniently left parts of that Psalm out, twisting the meaning to support his condemnation of every human being on the planet. This Psalm is about the "fool who says there is no God", contrasted to those that God is WITH...the righteous generation.
Jesus himself said there were those who were "righteous" (and this was pre-cross).


Matthew 13:17
For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Mark 2:16-17
16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”


Matthew 23:25
so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.


Anyway, that's just one example. If you feel like taking the time for it, everywhere Paul quotes from the OT, cross reference it and notice how he twists the meaning to support his doctrine. Very sneaky.

originally posted by: letmeaskyouaquestion
Genesis 49:27

Benjamin is a ravenous wolf ,
in the morning devouring his pray...

Matthew 7:15

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.."

Matthew 16:11

"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees!"

Philippians 3:4

"If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

A persecutor of the church (murderer) who is righteous under the law?

You're right on target, man, if you're still around I hope you are allowed in again, for you speak the truth about Jesus vs. Saulus, and may I add one meself, vs. John of Patmos, please carry on.

[...]
The New Testament is a test of loyalty, intelligence and has two religions. Sauls, and the Apostles of Jesus and they did not agree at all.

Indeed it is, sir, and you hit the hammer on the head. Please carry on with me.

I think it is safe to say that choosing to recognize Saul is rejecting Jesus.

Amen

Paul is the Wolf and the leaven, false prophet and all around traitor and scumbag.

He boasts of how he and his posse would love to meet the children of Caesar, indicating that he is hunting them down like the right Satan he is. The true house of Caesar is the House of Christ.

The conspiracy is the Church knows it and ignores it, teaches about Paul more than Jesus with the exception of the Catholic Church who doesn't really care about the Bible but does make good translations and somewhat acknowleges a schism between Peter and Paul because it is in the Bible after all and Paul hates James and John too. Everyone really. But they won't go as far as I will.

Saulus forced Peter and the others to testify in the forums and arenas, that they were followers of Jesus, thus enemies of the state and destined to be flogged and spat at and shat at in Rome where his treacherous reaper journey ends for all the Christians under his care, left to be eaten by lions or hung upon crosses and gallows or go out like «living candles». Saulus however, managed to sneak off to Spain apparently, that's where my trace ends.

Saulus claims he is from the house of Benjamin, but on the first leg of his reaping missions he starts by addressing the Son of Jesus as Son of Satan instead. Then Saulus goes on to blind the poor sod, and only after that episode Saulus carries the name Paulus (which is a Roman noble name) since as the text says Saulus also received his Roman name in this instant. Why? Because «Son of Jesus» had his best friend with him, Sergius Paulus, who traded back the vision of «Son of Jesus» in return for his fashionable name. Saulus then promises that «Son of Jesus» will regain his vision as if Saulus was a greater magus than Elymas Barjesus of the Magoi.

Later Saulus claims to be of Roman descent even though we have learned that he received his Roman name through deceit and bleeding extortion. He also claims he is «from Tarsos». Now, in the NA28 and similar texts the text reads in Acts 9:11 reads Gr. Ταρσέα «Tarsea» (accusative, odd) while it would be more natural to use Gr. Ταρσοῦ «Tarsou» (genitive) as in «Of Tarsos». All I can figure is that either Tarsea is Sauli original family name, or since the translation says «man of Tarsus named Saul», Tarsea has been written instead of the proper genitive Tarsou. And I suspect it was for the reason which I will demonstrate by showing how genitive Tarsou, lit. «of Tarsus», becomes 666 in Hebrew gematria.

«Of Tarsus» Gr. Ταρσοῦ (genitive, proper)
Τ = ת = Tav = 400
α = /a/ = niqqud = 0
ρ = ר = Resh = 200
σ = ס = Samek = 60
ο = /o/ = niqqud = 0
υ = ו = Vav = 6
SUM = 666

In Acts 22:3 «Of Tarsus» Gr. Ταρσῷ (dative, odd)
Τ = ת = Tav = 400
α = /a/ = niqqud = 0
ρ = ר = Resh = 200
σ = ס = Samek = 60
ῷ = ו = Vav = 6
SUM = 666

Proper number 666 in Hebrew is simply Heb. ת''רסו -- read as a word and not a number it sounds identical to Gr. Ταρσῷ (dative) or Gr. Ταρσοῦ (genitive) both words used by Saulus to discribe himself. Saulus is the Devil.

Are there anyone with some proper education in reading Koine Greek who can explain to me why the NA28 and most of the others avoid the genitive of Tarsos?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Khaleesi

I'm not comfortable continuing in this thread, as I don't really know what his thesis was.

Paul bashing threads are a dime a dozen on ATS, I have yet to see one that actually backs up vague allegations.

I think that a reasonable argument against Paul would pretty much have to be something like a person's systematic theology contrasted to Paul. Different people have different theologies, so one person's problems with Paul should not be considered as the same or even supporting another person's problems with Paul.

I'd like to see a decent debate sometime.

Well, being that there are so many people who "bash Paul", it might mean he stinks to high heaven of being a shyster.
What's even more telling, is the mess that Christianity is. If believers would only follow the teachings of Jesus, it wouldn't look so divided. Yet they strive to somehow follow Paul and Jesus' words are forgotten over Paul's scraptures. The teachings of the two contradict. Thus, the division you see even amongst believers (and the self righteousness, as well).
Jesus was humble...the real kind. Paul wasn't. Oh, he talked a good game, but that's all it was. His arrogance and false humility are very apparent.

Matthew 23:9-12
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

However, Paul was the one who established the actual "offices" of the church we see today....
"And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;" Ephesians 4:11

Jesus said otherwise....
John 2:27
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.


Paul was constantly exalting himself...above James, Peter, and John. He then did a fake self flagellating rant on how he was the "least of all the apostles" and the "worst sinner". Give me a break. He would turn around and skewer someone to the wall if they did something he didn't approve of. Heck, he would turn you over to satan, lol. It's that two faced part of him that shows his true colors.
Jesus came to "set the captives free". He didn't chase people down and berate them for their sin. People were drawn to Jesus...all kinds of people (women, children, broken, sinful, diseased, etc). The ones who hated him were the religious rulers.
Those religious rulers are in place TODAY, thanks to Pauline doctrine.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Anyway, that's just one example. If you feel like taking the time for it, everywhere Paul quotes from the OT, cross reference it and notice how he twists the meaning to support his doctrine. Very sneaky.

But the same can also be said about the Gospel writers. Outrageous liberties taken with what "event" fulfills what "prophesy fulfillment". Do a comparison.

Now the parts of the Psalm that Paul leaves out:
2
The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men(all humanity?)
4
Do all the workers of wickedness not know,
Who eat up my people(uhm, Judeans?) as they eat bread,
"5
There they are in great dread,
For God is with the righteous generation(uhm. Judeans?)

Does Paul really misuse the Psalm?

1What advantage, then, does the Jew have, or what value is there in circumcision? 2There are all kinds of advantages! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the utterances of God.

At the time this was written there were texts in addition to the Tanakh(PC way of saying Old Testament) Midrash or something used by Pharisees and Doctors of the Law(Torah) to extract meaning from Torah which wasn't obvious to the untrained. In other words, Law, Prophets, Midrash, superior Jewish mind all put together equals the utterances of God, or oracles of God.

That kind of sounds, to me anyway a lot like Jesus (in the John story) saying "Salvation is of the Jews". So is there a substantive difference between Paul's view and that of the Gospel writers? Perhaps "Salvation" itself must be examined.

What exactly is offered to people(which people) in the Gospels and what exactly is offered by Paul to people(which people?) Jew first, and then the Gentiles. Sounds to me like Jesus saying "children's bread given to dogs" to a non-Jewish woman.

Back in the old days theological divides were sharper, easier to classify and label. I was Covenant Theology (sometimes called replacement derogatorily) and then there were the Dispensationalist Theology people. I used to debate. The divides are not so sharp anymore, there are shades and nuances.

If we were to take the Bible as literal and inerrant(at least reliable) as the Word of God, then (this is only my opinion), the Dispensationalists have the stronger argument. And the Dispensationalists have the strongest reason to defend Paul.

But here's the kicker. The end game is a One World Government with Jerusalem as Center of Empire with all non-Jewish nations mandatorily paying tribute to Jerusalem. Sounds pretty cool huh?

So my position is "Just leave me out"

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Khaleesi

Hi Khaleesi.

I don't think we've been properly introduced. I'm Pthena.

Now that the OP has been banned, would you like to alter the original thesis of the thread to one you can support wholeheartedly?

It might be better to abandon this thread. Decide what your thesis is, get all your supporting arguments lined up, and then start a new thread.

The preliminary research I've done indicates that I've been out of the loop too long. I've seen people with all sorts of nuances to certain positions. Positions I'm not familiar with. It sure isn't the 1980s anymore!

Seems like you are not trying to accept the enormous amount of logical reasons provided by many in this thread.

I think it is rather simple and don't understand what you are missing. Wolf of Benjamin (Saul was a Benjaminite) leaven of the Pharisees (he claims to be a Pharisee) and that in itself fulfills OT prophecies and Jesus prophecies.

I don't know if you are a Christian or not but if you are you don't have to agree. But your claim that the Paul bashing is not supported by evidence is just false.

You even seem angry about it to the point where you are not being reasonable because the evidence is overwhelming.

You have been out of the loop I guess, because people have websites dedicated just to showing the evidence that any unbiased person would not be able to deny proves that in the context of the Bible Paul is a false prophet.

You should take your own advice, it is your research that is flawed, I assure you.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: pthena


Nice to meet you pthena. I didn't know the OP was banned. I'm not comfortable continuing in this thread, as I don't really know what his thesis was. I can assume I know from what I've already read but to be honest I'm not really sure. I'll consider starting a new thread. It may take me a day or two to formulate a post since I would need to gather some information and write a cogent post. Thanks. It's always nice to have a reasonable discussion/debate!

You have yout facts straight it seems, it is good to see so many people waking up to the truth about Saul.

I would hate to see you leave the thread you have many interesting things to say.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Jesus came to "set the captives free". He didn't chase people down and berate them for their sin. People were drawn to Jesus...all kinds of people (women, children, broken, sinful, diseased, etc). The ones who hated him were the religious rulers.

The Good News is that you can follow the Gospel writer accounts of the teachings of Jesus. No one can stop you. And further good news is that you are not alone in that, growing numbers of people are doing so, and maybe even communities. It is becoming a normative alternative to Pauline theology. (at least I think so).

a reply to: Shahada

Welcome to ATS where we never never assume we know someone else's mind better than they do.

I don't know if you are a Christian or not but if you are you don't have to agree.

No, I am not a Christian. I definitely don't follow Paul and I don't pretend to follow Jesus.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Anyway, that's just one example. If you feel like taking the time for it, everywhere Paul quotes from the OT, cross reference it and notice how he twists the meaning to support his doctrine. Very sneaky.

But the same can also be said about the Gospel writers. Outrageous liberties taken with what "event" fulfills what "prophesy fulfillment". Do a comparison.

Now the parts of the Psalm that Paul leaves out:
2
The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men(all humanity?)
4
Do all the workers of wickedness not know,
Who eat up my people(uhm, Judeans?) as they eat bread,
"5
There they are in great dread,
For God is with the righteous generation(uhm. Judeans?)

Does Paul really misuse the Psalm?

1What advantage, then, does the Jew have, or what value is there in circumcision? 2There are all kinds of advantages! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the utterances of God.

At the time this was written there were texts in addition to the Tanakh(PC way of saying Old Testament) Midrash or something used by Pharisees and Doctors of the Law(Torah) to extract meaning from Torah which wasn't obvious to the untrained. In other words, Law, Prophets, Midrash, superior Jewish mind all put together equals the utterances of God, or oracles of God.

That kind of sounds, to me anyway a lot like Jesus (in the John story) saying "Salvation is of the Jews". So is there a substantive difference between Paul's view and that of the Gospel writers? Perhaps "Salvation" itself must be examined.

What exactly is offered to people(which people) in the Gospels and what exactly is offered by Paul to people(which people?) Jew first, and then the Gentiles. Sounds to me like Jesus saying "children's bread given to dogs" to a non-Jewish woman.

Back in the old days theological divides were sharper, easier to classify and label. I was Covenant Theology (sometimes called replacement derogatorily) and then there were the Dispensationalist Theology people. I used to debate. The divides are not so sharp anymore, there are shades and nuances.

If we were to take the Bible as literal and inerrant(at least reliable) as the Word of God, then (this is only my opinion), the Dispensationalists have the stronger argument. And the Dispensationalists have the strongest reason to defend Paul.

But here's the kicker. The end game is a One World Government with Jerusalem as Center of Empire with all non-Jewish nations mandatorily paying tribute to Jerusalem. Sounds pretty cool huh?

So my position is "Just leave me out"

So you don't like the Bible? Why come to the defense of Saul if you are not a Pauline Christian?

And when people give you reasons for why this is the case with Saul, countering with bashing the Gospel writers is not a valid argument.

Or saying that certain texts aren't valid, like James. We have the Bible we have and nobody knows who wrote it, even scholars are guessing.

That is the opposite of good debating you are not really using valid arguments. You have two theologies in the NT, Jesus which was taught to and by the Apostles and you have a completely different theology with Saul.

That is just true.


The end game is not a New World Order either, that is a Zionist agenda and they are not really Semitic at all and didn't exist when the Bible was written.

a reply to: pthena

So my position is "Just leave me out"

Hey, I'm right there with ya, man. I even think some of what Jesus said has been tweaked. Thing is, I'm still able to see the contradictions between Jesus and Paul.
But, it really doesn't matter. I'm so sick of all of it that being around anything Christian (church, music, etc.) gives me a twitch.
Jesus is cool, though. I'm still trying to figure out the whole issue of God. I know that I know, there is something (or Someone) who is good.
The whole issue I have with YHWH is the animal sacrifices. I don't see that demand coming from anything good.
I recently read a book called "The Holy Virus" by Lional Parkinson. He goes into the whole "blood sacrifice" theme, from the OT on into the NT (continued by Paul/Saul). You can find it on Amazon.
I've spent hours and hours in the past 3 years, trying to figure out the Paul issues, then went into studying the problems I had with YHWH and the blood sacrifices. My love for animals was a catalyst for that.
Unfortunately, it's left me scratching my head even more, since animals also kill each other in this world. Which, of course, had me digging into the Gnostic side of things.
I've also studied the Essenes, Ebionites, etc. I find it interesting that there were other sects of Jews that aren't mentioned in the NT. John the Baptist very well could have been from these other sects.
You know waaaaay more than me theologically, You're also much better at espousing your views (more analytical). I'm just a mom who digs like crazy to understand the misgivings I have in my heart related to scripture. I don't go on blind faith anymore. Just because it's "in the book" doesn't mean it's true.
I feel like you stop learning when you just blindly believe....esp. when it looks evil, and you see people doing mental gymnastics to rationalize it.
Someone in another post responded to my comments about YHWH not being like Jesus at all, and basically said they weren't to question the animal sacrifice issue. Basically, if YHWH demanded it, that wasn't their concern. Oky Doky.
Sorry, but if something seems evil to me, then I'm not buying it just because "god said to do it". If flies in the face of the knowing of what is right and wrong that is already (I think) coded into our DNA.
It's WHY people are questioning Paul...or YHWH...or anything else in the bible. Something is telling them it's messed up!
Then, your average fundamental Christian will come along and condescendingly tell you how wrong you are.
Whatever. I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Don't want any part of it anymore.
So, I'll keep digging.

a reply to: Shahada

So you don't like the Bible? Why come to the defense of Saul if you are not a Pauline Christian?

Obviously I'm an arrogant jerk who wants people to reject Paul for my reasons and not their own. "my reasons are better than your reasons... nah nah nah"

The end game is not a New World Order either, that is a Zionist agenda and they are not really Semitic at all and didn't exist when the Bible was written.

Then please, by all means explain that to the Dispensationalists. My suggestion is read the book by Victoria Clark, Allies For Armageddon: The Rise of Christian Zionism

See, that's my personal agenda, and Ms Clark explains it much better than I can.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

So, I'll keep digging.

As for me,

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Shahada

Welcome to ATS where we never never assume we know someone else's mind better than they do.

I don't know if you are a Christian or not but if you are you don't have to agree.

No, I am not a Christian. I definitely don't follow Paul and I don't pretend to follow Jesus.

Good to know. And muchas gracias.

Why did you only use "pretend" when referring to Jesus?

Also if you think this rivalry is new it goes back to the first century and it was the might of Rome that extinguished the anti Pauline faction and erased the true history of the movement.

Someone kept some of the scripture from the various communities deemed heretical for not accepting Paul and they exist today in the Apocrypha that you can read online anytime you want.

It is not a modern day fad just a realization of facts that is coming out because of the internet. I figured it out on my own but I was astonished at the number of people before who have had the exact same realization including Catholic priests.

Technology is good for some things besides brainwashing the masses you can use it to your advantage with a tiny bit of awareness which I call Faith and a mustard seed size of it can do greater things than move mountains.

I will conclude with saying that I have been a much better person since I figured this out and was kind of depressed before.

But the awareness grows inside you sometimes and that is all I ever wanted. To continuously improve and to not be misled.