Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Joecroft

If it says Paul WAS teaching that without chastity there is no salvation, that is what the author wants the reader to believe.

If he wanted you to think he was lying he would have called them liars. Since he doesn't there is no reason to believe that they were lying and no reason to doubt that the author wants to paint this picture of Paul.

It clearly ISN'T painting him as righteous for the reasons I already made apparent.

He is clearly a coward who doesn't save Thecla TWICE and let's her be arrested TWICE.

Some "romance", Paul is a coward in the story, no hero.

a reply to: Joecroft

And your quote says "few scholars" believe that the two stories were connected, and it's a possibility.

But like I said, calling someone a hypocrite without saying why makes it a false accusation, and so what if the author says something nice about him?

When writing something that you don't want destroyed but passed around and including information that to the astute casts Paul in a negative light, like false accusations and his friends telling people that he was preaching ''without chastity there is no salvation" and making a woman the star of the saga, a woman who Paul does nothing to protect even with his "Jesus power" and having God overrule his decision not to Baptize her sounds like the author was hiding a message in a story.

That Paul is the hypocrite, not Hermogenes, who is not said by the author to be lying and therefore no legitimate reason exists to think it was meant to be ''inferred", there is no evidence of that and no evidence of hypocrisy.

Sounds like Paul was all " Hermogenes is a hypocrite, but since I, Paul, am so "humble", I will forgive you for your ''hypocrisy"

To make him lool like he was a creep more than anything.

a reply to: Joecroft

Before Paul is brought to trial Hermogenes and Demas teach the man seeking him about the true ressurection that has already happened to the children of the true God and says to call him ''a Christian" which would be, if a Jewish Nazarene or Ebionite wrote it, a different, false religion and Hermogenes is teaching about the true God and ressurection. Meaning the ressurection taught by the Messiah not one that demands chastity and the true meaning of it being something that happens while you are living, what Paul is teaching is false.

Then Paul admits to teaching what he is accused of claiming that it was from God, is arrested and again doesn't deny it, is flogged then released.

And though Thecla wanted to remain chaste and didn't blame Paul for not helping her when she got arrested, a weird visit by Jesus in the form of Paul takes place and he says "I can not bear my lot, for Paul has appeared to me" and he disappears. It doesn't make much sense but even if Paul did pray to have Thecla saved it was not Paul who saved her and he does nothing a second time when she ends up thrown to the lions and ends up being freed and converting a few people then Baptized herself, I guess they send more beasts to kill her but a wall of fire protects her.

Then she lives in a cave for 72 years preaching Christ, and converting many while Paul was killed before she could find him after her ordeal.

Hermogenes seems to know Paul is a false prophet and is not actually a hypocrite, maybe it's been tampered with or the author wanted to make sure to not insult Paul in a way that was obvious just in case it got in the wrong hands (my guess), but I see enough evidence to convict Paul of teaching that without chastity there is no ressurection, he admits it and claims to have heard it from God.

Hermogenes seems to be the one who understands the ressurection and the true God and teaches it to the man who arrests Paul then exiles him.

Christian is deliberately used as an insult, I believe Hermogenes is of the Nazarene/Ebionite faction, poor is even used one time that seemed deliberate, poor meaning Ebionite.

It's another parody that only has a few complimentary statements about Paul because it would have been dangerous to circulate overtly anti Pauline material, done like Luke did though, covertly, it could be passed off as Orthodox but not really be to the attentive reader.

The Acts of Paul is not in the entire collection of Clementina at all it's a completely different book, Thecla starts at the "hypocrisy" comment without saying how and later correcting it with Hermogenes teaching about the true God and Ressurection.

My other version doesn't even have that paragraph and might be a different translation but it has the same story with Paul refusing to Baptize her and God doing it Himself and Paul being a **** teaching without chastity there is no salvation/ressurection.

Hermogenes seems like he gets it, Thecla gets it but Paul did not, and lost his head for it.

Theclas 72 years, a symbolic number from ancient times, seems to be a Prophetess of sorts, God intervenes to save her and she probably was thought of as one.

2 Peter 1-3

But false prophets also arose from among the people, just as their will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will deny even deny the Master that brought them---bringing swift destruction on themselves. Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the Way of Truth will be maligned. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced against them long ago, has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep.




That's one of the best prophecies in the New Testament and true today. Anyone reading the Bible in order of Mt. to Rev. has just read those "deceptive words." The Chief false prophet is the one with "hard to understand" or "nonsensical" writings, if translated more faithfully to the Greek which I understand has a negative connotation and means nonsensical while "scripture" is translated from a word that only meant writings and not on par with the Word of God. Scripture today means anything that you personally consider imspired or sacred but the word translated scripture in Greek just means ''writings" and not all of the Tanakh texts today were always considered inspired at that time they were called ''writings" and I don't know the Greek word off the top of my head but it is not what we consider scripture that 2 Peter was calling Paul's nonsense that
he says:

''the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction,..."

I couldn't agree more.

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
There is no reason to infer that they were lying, the author doesn't infer it so why would anyone?

This unproven alleged hypocrisy doesn't seem convincing to me, I don't think it is any different than Paul accusing the Apostles of hypocrisy, it is no different.

No evidence, and Paul is known for making accusations without evidence, so again why should I believe it without evidence.

Believing that Hermogenes and Demas were lying because Paul of all people accuses them of hypocrisy without evidence is bad analysis.

The author doesn't say "Hermogenes and Demas falsey told..."

He says they told it, that's that. He leaves no indication of or reason to believe that they BOTH lied.

So why should I infer what is not there?

I’ve already explained how in my previous post…I’ll try to outline it more clearly one LAST time…


It’s not Paul but the WRITER of the “Acts of Paul”, that’s calling Demas and Hermongenes hypocrites…they’re being set up as the bad guys from very early on in the text…

They’re being set up as people that can’t be trusted, and gradually they develop a clear motive for disliking Paul even further, and for lying about Paul and ultimately having him handed over to the authorties etc…while Paul is being praised as rightoues and loving through various other parts of the text!!!…

For example…here below…

Acts of Paul
1 When Paul went up unto Iconium after he fled from Antioch, there journeyed with him Demas and Hermogenes the coppersmith, which were full of hypocrisy, and flattered Paul as though they loved him. But Paul, looking only unto the goodness of Christ, did them no evil, but loved them well,

Here is where the writer is setting them up to be the bad guys and having a dislike for Paul…That dislike and hatred grows as the texts goes on…

For example here again below…

Acts of Paul
4 And when Paul saw Onesiphorus he smiled, and Onesiphorus said: Hail, thou servant of the blessed God. And he said: Grace be with thee and with thine house. But Demas and Hermogenes were envious, and stirred up their hypocrisy yet more, so that Demas said: Are we not servants of the Blessed, that thou didst not salute us so?

Due to the fact that there’s nowhere in Pauls speech (verses 5-6) where he states chastity is a requirement for salvation…it has to be inferred that Demas and Hermongenes are not being truthfull about Pauls teachings, which continues the theme of them being the bad guys and dislikng Paul etc…

The reader of the text is supposed to appreciate and understand that aspect…


We know that the writer thinks Demas and Hermongenes are the bad guys and against Paul and so forth, so it makes perfect sense that the reader is supposed to infer, that they are lying about what Paul taught regarding chastity, just to get him arrested…And remember, Paul isn’t teaching that chastity is a requirment for salvation in verses 5 to 6…


This all culminates in them helping to get Paul arrested…in these verses below…

11 But Thamyris leapt up and went forth into the street and watched them that went in to Paul and came out. And he saw two men striving bitterly with one another, and said to them: Ye men, tell me who ye are, and who is he that is within with you, that maketh the souls of young men and maidens to err, deceiving them that there may be no marriages but they should live as they are. I promise therefore to give you much money if ye will tell me of him: for I am a chief man of the city.
12 And Demas and Hermogenes said unto him: Who this man is, we know not; but he defraudeth the young men of wives and the maidens of husbands, saying: Ye have no resurrection otherwise, except ye continue chaste, and defile not the flesh but keep it pure.

Demas and Hermogenes disliked Paul from the beginning and his teachings, so they have clear motive to lie about Paul teaching those things to get him arrested. But Paul NEVER taught those things in his speech…


You can’t see it because you’re not reading and comprehending the text in it’s entirety… you’re just not weighing it up overall…

Added to which there are tons of other verses which praise Paul…here are just a few examples…

The Acts of Paul
5 And when Paul entered into the house of Onesiphorus, there was great joy, and bowing of knees and breaking of bread, and the word of God concerning abstinence (or continence) and the resurrection; for Paul said:

The Acts of Paul
18 But Thecla at night took off her bracelets and gave them to the doorkeeper, and when the door was opened for her she went into the prison, and gave the jailer a mirror of silver and so went in to Paul and sat by his feet and heard the wonderful works of God. And Paul feared not at all, but walked in the confidence of God: and her faith also was increased as she kissed his chains.

The Acts of Paul
A lion, then, of huge size and unmatched strength was let loose upon him, and it ran to him in the stadium and lay down at his feet. And when many other savage beasts, too, were let loose, it was permitted to none of them to touch the holy body, standing like a statue in prayer. At this juncture a violent and vast hailstorm poured down all at once with a great rush, and shattered the heads of many men and beasts as well, and shore off the ear of Hieronymus himself. And thereafter, with his followers, he came to the God of Paul and received the baptism of salvation. But the lion escaped to the mountains.

In this verse above they’re calling it the “God of Paul”, they are clearly prasing Paul and his teachings for being that which saves them…what type of anti Pauline text would do that…answer…NONE….

There’s tons more examples within the text where Paul is teaching, the “word of God”, in some rightoues fasion…

Originally posted by Malocchio
If it says Paul WAS teaching that without chastity there is no salvation, that is what the author wants the reader to believe.

If he wanted you to think he was lying he would have called them liars. Since he doesn't there is no reason to believe that they were lying and no reason to doubt that the author wants to paint this picture of Paul.

But Paul isn’t teaching that there is no salvation without chastity in his speech in verses 5-6…

Originally posted by Malocchio
He is clearly a coward who doesn't save Thecla TWICE and let's her be arrested TWICE.

They arrested Thecla because she was following Paul teachings…so how can Paul possibly mount a defence to save her lol…you’re clearly not thinking this through…

And like I said before, the text wants to give the Glory to God, so that woman will come to believe that chastity is a great trait in the eyes of God…

Continued...

a reply to: Malocchio

Continued…

Originally posted by Malocchio
And your quote says "few scholars" believe that the two stories were connected, and it's a possibility.

You’re not reading and comprehending it correctly overall… which is pretty similar to what you’re doing with the Acts of Paul…

It’s talking past tense, as in few scholars were prepared to connect the 2 texts together…(in the beginning)… but now they do…as is confirmed further down, (I even quoted the part further down to highlight that fact in my other last post) here it is again below…

The very recent recovery of considerable parts of the Acts of Paul in a Coptic form in a Heidelberg papyrus has already been noticed in American journals, and the fact is here recalled only for its important bearing on the origin of the Acts of Paul and Thecla as a constituent part of that larger work.

Source

Which means the scholars believe the Acts of Paul has an important bearing on the Acts of Paul and Thecla and that it is considered to be a part of that larger work…


I’m not even sure what you’re angle is here…both texts mention Thecla, they both have the theme of Chasity and Paul teaching about chastity…and Scholars believe they are connected for additional reasons…

My original argument was that with both books being related to each other and for one to praise Paul, while the other paints him in a bad light, wouldn’t make any sense…

But I think I made that argument based on your original statement on page 58 (your quote below) Where you stated you didn’t think the “Acts of Paul” belonged to the anti Pauline Clementina…while also stating that the “Acts of Paul and Thecla” WAS anti Pauline…

Those two aspects being true, didn’t make any sense considering that both texts are related to each other…

Here’s that quote below…

Originally posted by Malocchio
I never read Acts of Paul to be honest and don't think it would belong to the decidedly anti Pauline Clementina, I think it was thrown in to offset the tone of the rest which is anti Pauline or Pauline absent or has him subservient to Peter.

You must have had some reasons for stating that in the beginning…

But regardless, my original response was based on you having that view above, but then you changed your mind, to that of it being anti Pauline…



Summing up…

I understand you are against Paul the Apostle, and so AM I, but I think your bias is making you evaluate “the Acts of Paul” text incorrectly, you seem to be overly emotionally involved with the text, which is clouding your judgement…IMO

The clue is pretty much in the title, “The Acts of Paul”, that’s a dead give away…IMO…I mean, if you were going to write a book that’s praising the true and righteous followers, then you would name it after those true disciples and Apostles (just like the other Acts books do)…for example you would call it something like…“The Acts of Demas and Hermongenes”…

There are also many places within that text, which praise Paul and/or make him out to be something great; it seems to me like you're just sweeping those aspects under the carpet and pretending like they don’t exist. That’s bad analysis…

I completely take on board that other Acts books were written to attack Paul and the standard Christian view, but I don’t see that clearly within the 2 texts we WERE discussing…If anything the Acts of Paul was used to counter those other Acts books…

Anyway, due to the fact that you didn’t even comprehend what was being said overall in the journal link…that’s not a good sign for anyone trying to comprehend what’s taking place in the “Acts of Paul…”


So for that reason…I’m out of this conversation…


- JC

a reply to: Malocchio

The trade language to day is English. As Latin was in the day of the Roman Empire, as Greek was int he day of Alexander, as Chaldean was in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, as was Hebrew at the time of Moses. there were many languages throughout time and translations made into those languages form the preserved Bible they had at each step along the line.

Most Jews know English as a second language.

The Authorized Version is what it is called it was not coined the King James until the mid 19th Century.

A Christian goes to heaven not by which Bible they read but by faith in the right Gospel at the right time, today it is the Gospel of the grace of God.

The preserved Bible will only open the eyes of anyone to advanced revelation and to mysteries God has revealed if they read it with a true heart of faith and what men have hid by their translation for filthy lucre.

a reply to: Joecroft

I read the story twice last night, I have two versions, just to see if maybe I was missing something.

That's why I gave a pretty unbiased summary yet I still feel the same. Hermogenes seems to understand the meaning of ressurection and the true God, is not a hypocrite and nothing is clouding my judgement at all.

I just can't ignore obvious facts like teaching ''no ressurection without chastity" and the others I've mentioned enough times just to agree with you.

And I mentioned Paul being the reason for her arrest and not saving her not because I didn't think anything through but because he just dissappears without putting up a fight and doesn't rescue her.

You called it a ''romance" and I don't find that too romantic at all. You put way too much effort into disagreeing about it, I really don't think it is even debatable that Paul is made a joke of in the story.

I think you just don't have your glasses on.

a reply to: Joecroft

I actually was done with ''Paul and Thecla" because it's not an issue I'm on the fence about, just one I told you what I think and why. You don't have to agree with me or like my reasons but they are good reasons nonetheless.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

The trade language to day is English. As Latin was in the day of the Roman Empire, as Greek was int he day of Alexander, as Chaldean was in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, as was Hebrew at the time of Moses. there were many languages throughout time and translations made into those languages form the preserved Bible they had at each step along the line.

Most Jews know English as a second language.

The Authorized Version is what it is called it was not coined the King James until the mid 19th Century.

A Christian goes to heaven not by which Bible they read but by faith in the right Gospel at the right time, today it is the Gospel of the grace of God.

The preserved Bible will only open the eyes of anyone to advanced revelation and to mysteries God has revealed if they read it with a true heart of faith and what men have hid by their translation for filthy lucre.

So, what happens to someone who gets the " wrong translation", that lives in BFE? Are they doomed to hell? Cause seriously, Chester.. do you actually think someone in India or China is going to get the "non-corrupted version?
By the way, it was Paul who established the " filthy lucre", bro. Where the heck do you think the Roman Catholic Church came from? That's all Paul's doctrine.
By the way....Jesus never instituted "pastors, teachers, other apostles, etc. Only one who came up with those "offices" were Paul. Jesus said HE was to be our sole leader and the Holy Spirit was to be the one who REMINDED us of what He taught.
Got something to add?
Oh, and just refute what I said....and don't keep repeating the same Psalm and "God's Word"/"rightly dividing the word of truth" junk.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

as long as they are following the correct gospel the only effect would be their stunted growth and rejection of God's word.

Which is something I see a lot in many who have the Bibles that were printed for filthy lucre's sake. Paul was not a promoter of filthy lucre and had no idea that wicked men would use the gospel of the grace of God as a means to control, money and power.

You know you are blaspheming God's word every time you misuse it as you do to wholeheartedly promote you false teachings about Paul.

The RC hates the preserved word of God even as you do.

Some of those would have us believe that Paul was not for Jesus Christ but the word of God says differently. Let's consider Jesus Christ own testimony concerning Paul.

Mark 9:38-40 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.
Luke 9:49-50 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Paul cast out devils and did many other miracles in Jesus Christs name, nor did he ever speak evil lightly about Jesus Christ. Not only that Paul taught that no one could speak evil of Jesus to call him accursed and claim to be speaking by the Holy Ghost.

Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
1Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Anyone, who believes that Paul is doing his own thing is wrong. Paul was for Jesus Christ and served him until his death and now sits with him in heaven until the Lord returns. For he loves and serves our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul did not create Christianity is was the natural outflow of the work of God that the Jews had rejected. When they rejected his final servant Paul, the Gospel of the grace of God was testified to the Gentiles and unto the world. Paul and Barnabas were the ones who called them Christians first in Antioch Ceasarea.

Oh and this is what happens when someone is not of Christ trying to cast out devils

Ac 19:13 ¶ Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
17 And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

I think Paul was known of God and his service for our Lord Jesus Christ was ordained with miracles.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
Some of those would have us believe that Paul was not for Jesus Christ but the word of God says differently. Let's consider Jesus Christ own testimony concerning Paul.

Mark 9:38-40 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.
Luke 9:49-50 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Paul cast out devils and did many other miracles in Jesus Christs name, nor did he ever speak evil lightly about Jesus Christ. Not only that Paul taught that no one could speak evil of Jesus to call him accursed and claim to be speaking by the Holy Ghost.

Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
1Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Anyone, who believes that Paul is doing his own thing is wrong. Paul was for Jesus Christ and served him until his death and now sits with him in heaven until the Lord returns. For he loves and serves our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul did not create Christianity is was the natural outflow of the work of God that the Jews had rejected. When they rejected his final servant Paul, the Gospel of the grace of God was testified to the Gentiles and unto the world. Paul and Barnabas were the ones who called them Christians first in Antioch Ceasarea.

Paul was promoting "his gospel" under the guise of "for Christ". Paul never, and I mean NEVER taught the things Jesus taught. He was a false apostle...period.

Paul cast out devils and did many other miracles in Jesus Christs name, nor did he ever speak evil lightly about Jesus Christ. Not only that Paul taught that no one could speak evil of Jesus to call him accursed and claim to be speaking by the Holy Ghost.

a reply to: ChesterJohn


Matthew 7:21-25King James Version (KJV)

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

What I find amazing is you would use a Bible you do not believe to be true, whole, accurate and without corruption, to try and prove Paul a sinner who is going to hell. You make Jesus words about those who are for him false, thereby proclaim Jesus a liar and just another wicked man.

The reason that Jesus Words and Paul's seems different to you is because you do not study to show yourself as one approved unto God, rightly dividing the words of truth (2Tim 2:15) but rather study to show you are right and God is wrong in preserving his words to this generation. You fail to see the differences in the Kingdom Gospel to the Jews and their promised kingdom rule over the whole earth, and the Gospel of the grace of God given to Paul to testify unto the whole world from his calling unto the gathering of the body of Christ into the clouds ever more to be with him.

You fail to see the mystery of the body of Christ revealed by God's inspiration given unto Paul that is given unto men today via God's preservation. Unless you repent of these lies of the devil and the doctrines of men, you are the one who will say in that day lord lord did I not do great works in your name and he will say unto you "I never knew you, you worker of iniquity.

As for Paul and those who have come to know Jesus Christ and are part of his body, we are known of him and he cannot reject his own body. You are not and the word that were sewn in your heart of the gospel of Grace you are allowing to be plucked up by the birds and unless you repent soon you will not even enter into eternity with Christ. For you are not under the gospel of the Kingdom until After the gathering of the saints in the clouds ever more to be with Jesus.

But you have hope. If you are not gathered with us by faith in the gospel by which you came to Christ originally, and you are left behind, then you must endure and overcome until the end of the 7 years under the gospel of the kingdom for it will be in affect during that time or die a martyr letting them cut off your head. If the latter occurs then you are one of the souls seen under the altar.

Rev 6:9-11 ¶ And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

But more and likely you will be given over to the strong delusion and never come to Christ at all.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You make Jesus words about those who are for him false, thereby proclaim Jesus a liar and just another wicked man.

No, I said Paul was the liar and JESUS spoke THE TRUTH. Big difference. You see, I do not believe Paul spoke from anyone but himself or the deceiving spirit in him.
Jesus, however, spoke only the Words the Father gave Him, and all the works and miracles He did were also done by the Father, through Him.
So, I guess I am "rightly dividing the Word of Truth".....Jesus words vs. Paul's words. ONE is the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE.
The other (Paul) wasn't.

What is so comical to me is, you think that if I don't believe in Paul's apostleship and legitimacy, I'm somehow lost. So, by me choosing Jesus over Paul, I'm deceived....or not saved....or facing the strong delusion...or going through the tribulation and probably getting my head chopped off.
By the way, the "rapture" is a false doctrine, as well. (more Pauline bs)


Jesus said in
Matthew 24:29-31King James Version (KJV)

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


So, unless you die before He gets back, you better prepare for the Great Tribulation yourself....you just might get your head chopped off, too.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

until you learn how to rightly divide you will put Paul in the wrong place and claim his is a liar. But in truth he is a saint.

What is so comical is that you want to use a bible you do not believe is true, whole and without corruption to prove your false teachings correct. And you cant because you cannot be sure they are correct because the Bible you believe in is corrupt words of men.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

until you learn how to rightly divide you will put Paul in the wrong place and claim his is a liar. But in truth he is a saint.

What is so comical is that you want to use a bible you do not believe is true, whole and without corruption to prove your false teachings correct. And you cant because you cannot be sure they are correct because the Bible you believe in is corrupt words of men.

You don't have the true Ruach Qodesh. Which is FEMININE. You have a "he" and you call it the "Holy Ghost" (thanks to your King James Version of the Bible), THUS.....you don't know how to rightly HEAR the TRUTH, which is what the Holy Spirit (Ruach Qodesh) is FOR. Therefore, it's not ME who is deceived Chester...it's YOU. You are listening to man's interpretation of a book that has been tampered with. You can believe all day long that "God" kept it pure, but even you yourself have said that the different interpretations of some "supposed" original version that you hold to, has been corrupted.
Oh! Guess your god couldn't protect the original from being corrupted. Well gee, then what now? Is He only powerful enough to protect the "original" and everyone just has to fend for themselves to figure out which version that is??
Do you even realize how ridiculous that is?
Also, you take Paul's words over your "Savior" Jesus', constantly. Are you sure Jesus is who you follow? Seems to me you are following Paul...obviously your Messiah.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

But in truth he is a saint.

LOL....nope. He was a two faced misogynistic jerk, who didn't know Jesus at all. He actually contradicted Jesus constantly.
You get around that because you actually believe there are TWO gospels. Hmmmmm....Jesus didn't teach that at all.
Anyway, I'm done arguing and debating you. Have at it, bro.


And from what you've said about women and your wife... I can make a sure bet that you believe they need to "know their place "....

What place would that be? Serving you?....and men in general.
Figures.