Did Paul Invent Christianity?

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Malocchio

TextI have begun reading the surprisingly good Gospel of Barnabas which is in line with the views of Paul as a false prophet and the fact that Barnabas is known to have sided with the Petrine faction in the book of Acts and the acts of Barnabas that record Paul treating John Mark, Barnabas friend and disciple, like a piece of garbage. It's liked by Muslims because it doesn't agrees with their views and although it is said that the oldest copy is AD 1000 or so it seems very likely that it's a genuine tradition going back much further.

In my previous posts I have discussed this very subject with "enterthestage" on 9/25/16 and it may help you understand some of your cockeyed interpretations.

"Cockeyed interpretations" is quite what I expect to hear from a Pauline Christian. I don't know anything about yout discussion about the Gospel of Barnabas and don't really care as I personally like the books theme and am going with it as it represents true Nazarene teachings.

I consider it a revealed doctrine that is the true Gospel, whoever wrote it was on point theologically.

I am not a Pauline Christian because I don't side with the enemy of the friends of my Messiah. You can deny what was written and say that they were on the same team but the evidence proves you wrong. I have done nothing ''Cockeyed" and your willingness to insult me betrays your frustration and inability to refute me so you resort to insults instead of scholarly refutation because I am not wrong and yoy can't.

Quote
When the Holy Spirit appoints Barnabas and Saul to be missionaries from Antioch in Acts 13:2, Barnabas and Saul decide to take John Mark along as an assistant (Acts 13:5). But something happened after the team left Cyprus and headed on into Pamphylia. It is very serious, but Luke only mentions it in one sentence in Acts 13:13, "Now Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem."
Luke is very reserved here. He passes no judgment on John. We wait to see what will come of this.

Why would Luke ''pasz judgement on John?" John's an Apostle and Luke is just a disciple so he has no venue to pass judgement on John, right or even a reason.

Where Acts 15:36 Picks Up
Two or three years later, after the first missionary journey is over, and after the Jerusalem council has settled the issue of Gentile circumcision, and after Paul and Barnabas are back in Antioch teaching and preaching, Paul is convinced that the time is right for a return to that first missionary field to strengthen the saints. This is where Acts 15:36 picks up . . .
And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Come, let us return, and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.
Unquote
Source -- www.desiringgod.org...

See my earlier quote about the forced purification ritual Paul consented to for his anti Torah teachings.

Brnabas andJamel Mark were cousins and this was a matter of nepotism and not the fault of Paul as you so misaligned. John Mark was not

After Barnabas parted fellowship with Paul over his cousin's failed attempt at evangelizing it seems that he did join Cephas (Peter) who was his brother in law. The reason for this move is suspected as anger on Barnabas' behalf and not Paul. Why?

Barnabas sided with Peter, end of story.

"All those who are in Asia have turned from me." Says Paul.

The reason why is suspected by NT scholars as being that Peter's wife (Mary) and Peter were the parents of John Mark. clear it is believed by some scholars that John Mark was Peter's son and that it was nepotisim at its very core.

John Mark was very immature either mentally or physically for evangelizing the heathens. It was a very hard and dangerous undertaking at this time and under those conditions. Mark was the cousin of Barnabas who in turn was the brother in law of Cephus (Peter). As the Apostles were teamed together by two men to a team it did not include John Mark. The teams were selected by drawing lots.

Once again here are the teams in 48 CE.

Thomas and Bartholomew were allotted to the care of
the east.

Simon and Matthew to the south.

Philip and Thaddaeus to the north.

Matthew and James to the centre of the world (" Medium
mundi").

John and Andrew to the provinces of the Mediterranean,

Peter and Paul to the kingdoms of the West.

As you can see, Peter's son [John Mark] is not mentioned to team with the others. He was not qualified for this tour at this time. Now during this era it was Paul who invited Barnabas to tour a certain area. It was that Barnabas then wanted John Mark to go with them on this one particular tour. This was the reason that John Mark was then adopted by Paul to team with Paul and Barnabas.

It is greatly suspected that the tour was too much for Peter’s son, John Mark, and John Mark then returned to Jerusalem.
It was but three years later that Paul asked Barnabas to re tour their first tour but rejected taking John Mark along. Here is where John Mark’s cousin Barnabas had a tizzy with Paul. It was nepotism at the very best. Paul said no and Barnabas said yes and Barnabas pouted and joined his brother in law Peter who then took his son, John Mark, under his wing.

Now when you read this story you should realize that Barnabas' tizzy with Paul was not connected with the teams of two by two where Peter and Paul were a team. The reason I show that John Mark was not in the lots of teams is to only show that John Mark was not qualified for evangelizing. I suspect that he was not strong enough for the rugged hardship required and I believe that is the reason he quit his post with Paul. Regardless, it was not Paul who was angry but the Cephus clan that was angry.

It was a family squabble which Paul then tried to heal with little results. And it was not the only squabble that Paul had with Peter. Peter was pretty double minded even during the trial and death of Jesus and that was a good five years before Paul’s conversion. Peter was known for unruliness long before he and his brother in law Barnabas joined the Nazarene James. e
No one is perfect and most certainly this story shows that very well but it is not as you have inferred. You have led people astray from the entire truth of the matter. The entire affair was the fault of a young son who quit his post and his cousin [Barnabas] and his daddy [Peter] didn’t want to address his fault. It was pure nepotisim and nothing more. Yes Barnabas did get mad and go to his brother in law and all three bashed Paul because they did not get their way but that did not deter Paul one bit.
By the way, had you noted that Matthias was not among those went out and yet Paul was? Humm -------------------

You used a lot of words, I had to delete just to

a reply to: Seede


You used a lot of words that explained some events and a lot of guesses why there were problems but you do admit that Paul had disputes and so does Paul as I will quote him again:

"All those who are in Asia have turned from me"

Asia means the 7 Churches that John wrote to, the Jerusalem faction.


Paul, rejected in Asia, goes out among the Greeks who don't have any loyalty to the Torah or knowledge of and he got in trouble with James for teaching against the Torah. I have provided links and references from reliable sources including the Bible itself and you can believe in Paul's false gospel all you like.

I am sticking with Christ and the Apostles.

Paul is the enemy.


Your words lack substance and are just ramblings about Barnabas and John Mark and possible reasons for disputes that you don't consider a big deal but are based on what Paul says and does and nobody liked him except a few people that are of no significance to the creation of the Nazarene Way, suckers that sometimes he writes turn away from him and join with the Petrine faction and his letters are about as scrambled and meaningless as what you just wrote which is a lot of words and nothing important.

Everything I said is easily substantiated so you will just have to accept you're a Pauline Christian and I am not.

I am of the Petrine and Jerusalem faction that Paul is the historical enemy of (even though it's been ignored for millennia).

I like my team, I have more scripture and a more sensible theology.

a reply to: Joecroft

Ok so the Authors of the four Gospels called them apostles Jesus never called them Apostles.

Jesus called them my disciples, he called them servants, and he called them friends. There is no proof he called any of them Apostles.

There is one verse where he names twelve apostles however this was still the writers witness not proof Jesus ever called them by that term.

However, I believe that God Almighty has by his own power kept his word to preserve his word to every generation forever and as such in this generation there is only one Bible that has all the verse in it and God by inspiration of the Holy Ghost tells us that there were many other apostles and that Paul was the least of them.

So Joe and the rest of you anti-Paul you are wrong and God and his word is true.

To deny one part of the preserved word of God is to deny it all. When it comes to the Preserved word of God it is all or nothing.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

To deny one part of the preserved word of God is to deny it all. When it comes to the Preserved word of God it is all or nothing.

Fortunately the book says nothing like that...

Thus you're pushing man made doctrine

Stay true to form brother

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Joecroft

Ok so the Authors of the four Gospels called them apostles Jesus never called them Apostles.

Jesus called them my disciples, he called them servants, and he called them friends. There is no proof he called any of them Apostles.

There is one verse where he names twelve apostles however this was still the writers witness not proof Jesus ever called them by that term.

However, I believe that God Almighty has by his own power kept his word to preserve his word to every generation forever and as such in this generation there is only one Bible that has all the verse in it and God by inspiration of the Holy Ghost tells us that there were many other apostles and that Paul was the least of them.

So Joe and the rest of you anti-Paul you are wrong and God and his word is true.

To deny one part of the preserved word of God is to deny it all. When it comes to the Preserved word of God it is all or nothing.

I would not be so quick to judge others as wrong for not accepting a documented enemy of the original Jewish Apostles and especially of James and Peter and the followers of them after their death.

It was the Latin Church that decided to marginalize important people like James and promote Paul as the theologian of the New Testament and I can't believe that they didn't know that the two factions hated each other. They needed to be attached to the Apostles but not Judaism so they used the found letters of Paul that were only witnessed by Marcion as doctrine.

God is above being responsible for the contents of a book and isn't the guardian of literature. It's within the ability of free will to screw up a good thing and adding Pauline theology to the New Testament was just a historical blunder.


God also tests mankind with false prophets and lets men be decieved by thinking that they are so right when they are actually being tested and accepting Paul is equal to rejecting Jesus and failing the test of the false prophet that was clearly given in Matthew 24.

You underestimate God's intelligence and the law of free will. The scriptures are to be studied and it's easy to see how Paul is a false prophet.

As easy as it is to say God protects a book and ''your wrong.''

a reply to: Akragon

Stay true to form brother

I've actually been thinking how strange it would be if those we are familiar with suddenly changed radically.

I find it is easier to change one's own opinions and views while not in front of a live audience.

a reply to: Akragon

I imagine as the OP you are satisfied with the results of your thread. I had a good time using the Bible to support the idea that Paul invented Christianity and take it further and showing that the Apostles didn't approve of Paul's teachings.

I kind of went off, I took advantage of the opportunity but I feel very satisfied that I have proven my point (and yours) and I hope people wake up to the truth.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Not sure why you are focusing on the word “Apostle”; apostle is just a person who supposedly follows Christ, but cannot be compared to the original twelve who Jesus first called…

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
Ok so the Authors of the four Gospels called them apostles Jesus never called them Apostles.

Jesus called them my disciples, he called them servants, and he called them friends. There is no proof he called any of them Apostles.

Jesus only called the 12, his Disciples; Mark and Luke or not a part of the 12 and are therefore, at best Apostles…

There is one verse where he names twelve apostles however this was still the writers witness not proof Jesus ever called them by that term.

The point of my previous post among other things, is that the original 12 Disciples that Jesus called, should carry more weight than any other Apostle who never met Jesus personally…

It’s like going to learn Brazilian Jujitsu…you don’t want to go to some sham school, you want to go to a Gracie certified school, so you can learn the original method…

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
However, I believe that God Almighty has by his own power kept his word to preserve his word to every generation forever and as such in this generation there is only one Bible that has all the verse in it and God by inspiration of the Holy Ghost tells us that there were many other apostles and that Paul was the least of them.

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
So Joe and the rest of you anti-Paul you are wrong and God and his word is true.

Where did I say I was anti-Paul…??? I’m actually undecided!!! but have a few theories of my own…I’m definitely pro Jesus though, as I take his words as more important than anything else.

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
To deny one part of the preserved word of God is to deny it all. When it comes to the Preserved word of God it is all or nothing.

Are you sure about that…?

Take a look at this verse…

Matthew 23:33-34
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.

Jesus accused the Pharisees of killing righteous prophets and of ignoring their testimonies. Whatever these righteous prophets were teaching was NOT PRESERVED, and they were killed for speaking truth, just like Jesus was.


The book of Revelation was voted in very late into the Bible, and shares huge similarities to various other apocalyptic texts…a few of which almost made it into scripture but were voted out very late. The Apocalypse of Peter is just one example, which was considered official scripture by Clement of Alexandria…

There were also many other Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical texts that were later REMOVED from the Bible. One such book was the “Book of Enoch” which was originally part of the Old Testament but was REMOVED for very unclear reasons, which personally don’t make any sense, as it was backed by a number of important church fathers as being legitimate scripture before being voted out…


So, all or nothing you say…?


- JC

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

The creator of the Torah was NOT the true Most High. Which is exactly WHY Jesus contradicted him....numerous times. Neither Yahweh, nor Paul...was aligned with the TRUE GOD.

I believe last month we had gone over this and your final word was that that this Yahweh was evil. I never received an answer from you as to who Yahweh is in your understanding. Till we can get on the same page I have no idea who and what you are talking about.

You have no idea? I already said, Yawheh is an imposter god, and the Father who Jesus came to show us, ISN'T him. Is that clear enough?
So now, why don't you show me verse and chapter on Paul's three stories of his conversion, and show me how the differences in his story are "insignificant".

a reply to: Joecroft

So is a disciple and there were over 500 by the time Paul ever came on the scene. He also states by the hand of Luke that there were other apostles before him.

So the point being Jesus never called any Apostles he sent out the 12 and the seventy he called to send out. and later Paul says he is an apostle. No big deal. But when a person says Paul wasn't an apostle then they usually are anti-Paul and call those today Pauline Christians Even though Paul was not Christ. Were are Christians followers of Jesus Christ even as Paul was.

a reply to: Malocchio

Yeah you went at it with a preconceived Idea to prove it DIVORCING every scripture you used form the context not only in the book but the NT itself.

You are a false teachers, parroting false teachings of a cult like group because cults usually come to the Bible with preconceived ideas and pretext the scriptures to prove their point. Like many JWs and Mormons do. Both groups are what are termed Christian cults.

a reply to: Malocchio

Hey ti was you claiming paul said he was the 13th or 14th apostle I merely showed that Jesus called none of them Apostles. That was done by the writers of the NT gospel books.

I am glad you can see the difference between Jewish church of Jews alone, and the current church a mixture of both Jew and Gentile.

Good luck thinking your saved by the Kingdom Gospel and reject the only gospel that will save today, the gospel of the grace of God.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

The creator of the Torah was NOT the true Most High. Which is exactly WHY Jesus contradicted him....numerous times. Neither Yahweh, nor Paul...was aligned with the TRUE GOD.

I believe last month we had gone over this and your final word was that that this Yahweh was evil. I never received an answer from you as to who Yahweh is in your understanding. Till we can get on the same page I have no idea who and what you are talking about.

You have no idea? I already said, Yawheh is an imposter god, and the Father who Jesus came to show us, ISN'T him. Is that clear enough?
So now, why don't you show me verse and chapter on Paul's three stories of his conversion, and show me how the differences in his story are "insignificant".

I did the opposite yesterday and highlighted the irreconcilably alternate telling of Luke where the unknown companions of Paul also hear the voice but Paul tells it as though he alone heard the voice and says his companions didn't.

I even provided the verses and all three testimonies from Acts verbatim and highlighted the claim in the the third telling and second by Paul that he will be receiving future revelations from Christ who "Will appear" in the third version which would constitute a secret meeting with Christ that Matthew 24 warns will be a claim of false prophets and to not believe them, also applicable to the Damascus road tale itself which even fails the law of two or three witnesses as we don't have their testimony just Paul's say so and Luke's report of how Paul tells it.

I think the issue has been settled and you won't be receiving a response that reconciles the difference between hearing and not hearing the voice or answers thr question, why would Luke contradict Paul's account knowing it would be easy to see?

I think that though commissioned to write an account of Paul that connects him to the Jerusalem faction, Luke told a revealing account of how Paul is connected to the Apostles (as an enemy) and without saying so directly (that would have not been accepted) lets the astute reader know that only Paul is the teller of this story and it doesn't line up with logic or the Gospels except as the introduction to the false prophet Saul who was a sociopath killer before his alleged conversion. Something Paul brags about as zeal.

180° turns are either employed deception or the result of a traumatic experience that forever changes your previous outlook.

Paul's uncorroborated and inconsistent alleged experience is similar to the claims of Joseph Smith, and all the corruption in today's modern Christian churches can be blamed on a failure to believe in the life giving words of Christ and emulating the character of the deciever Saul aka Paul, whom Fundamental Christianity focuses on more than anyone including Jesus when it comes to theology and totally ignores the true history of the schism between Jewish Nazarenes and Greco Roman Christianity.

Modern scholarship doesn't but some churches discourage scholarship that is not in conformity with Fundamental doctrine.


I saw a video where a pastor was questioning the method of selection of Matthias as improper and not the right way, as if the Bible is wrong about Matthias being the 12th Apostle and he knows better than the Holy Spirit and the 11 remaining Apostles who personally met Christ and had the ability to consult the Holy Spirit and did so.

All that just because he knows that there can be only 12 Apostles and that disqualifies Paul or anyone else from eligibility.

He would rather call the Christ educated Apostles presumptuous in believing that they had the authority to select a new Apostle even though nobody doubts that Matthias was a valid Apostle including Paul himself who calls them ALL "Apostle of men."

Whatever that means it's derogatory and due to his knowledge that the honor of Apostle is not his to be had so he appoints himself by default just saying that as an apostle NOT of men.

So he claims to be the Apostle of the Heavenly Christ who a new gospel other than the one of Christ is given to him through and by Christ himself, although it is at odds with the Gospel of Christ.

He accuses the Apostles of perverting the Gospels (No marvel! even Satan appears as an angel of light (read what precedes that comment)) and I think it is a new day where the true disciples are realizing this and becoming wiser and closer to God while the intolerant Pauline faction calls them names and insults their intelligence for being aware and loyal to Christ.

originally posted by:
ChesterJohn

Not sure why you are focusing on the word “Apostle”; apostle is just a person who supposedly follows Christ, but cannot be compared to the original twelve who Jesus first called…

There are 12 Apostles with the replacement of Judas as Matthias. After that no one is an Apostle.

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
Ok so the Authors of the four Gospels called them apostles Jesus never called them Apostles.

Jesus called them my disciples, he called them servants, and he called them friends. There is no proof he called any of them Apostles.

Jesus names the 12 Apostles and in Revelation refers to them as ''The 12 Apostles of the Lamb." That's proof he called the 12 the Apostles. The Bible also says that there are 12 Apostles and you regard the Bible as preserved by God and 100% inspired so I would imagine that you believe the Bible when it says there were 12 Apostles and records the names of them all.

Jesus only called the 12, his Disciples; Mark and Luke or not a part of the 12 and are therefore, at best Apostles…

I think you got that backwards the 12 are Apostles and Mark and Luke disciples.

There is one verse where he names twelve apostles however this was still the writers witness not proof Jesus ever called them by that term.

So you think that the Gospels misquote Jesus yet is the ''preserved word'' of God and to Christians Jesus who is God?

If the validity of the testimony of one Gospel writer is questionable than so is the entire New Testament and you are willing to doubt the validity of a Gospels record of Jesus naming the 12 Apostles because you desire the legitimacy of Pauls being an Apostle?

If the contents of the Gospels is questionable to you than you don't really believe that it's preserved or the word of God and need to realize that what you're saying makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
However, I believe that God Almighty has by his own power kept his word to preserve his word to every generation forever and as such in this generation there is only one Bible that has all the verse in it and God by inspiration of the Holy Ghost tells us that there were many other apostles and that Paul was the least of them.

Then why do you doubt the accuracy of the Gospels and not the epistles of Paul?

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
So Joe and the rest of you anti-Paul you are wrong and God and his word is true.





Originally posted by ChesterJohn
To deny one part of the preserved word of God is to deny it all. When it comes to the Preserved word of God it is all or nothing.


You must think it nothing.

You denied the accuracy of the author who has Jesus naming the 12 Apostles saying he could have been wrong. You preach that which you do not practice saying things in condemnation yet doing the things you condemn by denying that the record of the 12 Apostles is accurate.

You contradict yourself blatantly.

Matthew 23:33-34
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.



Jesus accused the Pharisees of killing righteous prophets and of ignoring their testimonies. Whatever these righteous prophets were teaching was NOT PRESERVED, and they were killed for speaking truth, just like Jesus was.


The book of Revelation was voted in very late into the Bible, and shares huge similarities to various other apocalyptic texts…a few of which almost made it into scripture but were voted out very late. The Apocalypse of Peter is just one example, which was considered official scripture by Clement of Alexandria…

There were also many other Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical texts that were later REMOVED from the Bible. One such book was the “Book of Enoch” which was originally part of the Old Testament but was REMOVED for very unclear reasons, which personally don’t make any sense, as it was backed by a number of important church fathers as being legitimate scripture before being voted out…


So, all or nothing you say…?

Good post JC.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Apostle simply means 'one who is sent out', from the Greek. Latinized, it is missionary. Jesus sent out the 12 in Matthew 10:5-15. Luke 10 has the Sending out the 70.
Other Apostles:
Barnabas : Act 14:14
Andronicus and Junia: Romans 16:7
Apollos: 1 Corinthians 4:6,9

Paul was chosen to be the 'instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles ...' with suffering and such. Acts 9:15. This in a very real sense is the curse of Deut. 4:26-31. But the curse includes also a promise of return for the repentant who seek their god. Plus, Paul's curse also can be tied in with the Isaiah Suffering Servant passages that mention 'being a witness to the nations'.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Apostle simply means 'one who is sent out', from the Greek. Latinized, it is missionary. Jesus sent out the 12 in Matthew 10:5-15. Luke 10 has the Sending out the 70.
Other Apostles:
Barnabas : Act 14:14
Andronicus and Junia: Romans 16:7
Apollos: 1 Corinthians 4:6,9

Paul was chosen to be the 'instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles ...' with suffering and such. Acts 9:15. This in a very real sense is the curse of Deut. 4:26-31. But the curse includes also a promise of return for the repentant who seek their god. Plus, Paul's curse also can be tied in with the Isaiah Suffering Servant passages that mention 'being a witness to the nations'.

The go to distraction technique used to get off the topic of the fact that for the 12 tribes 12 Apostles were chosen.

The definition of Apostle is irrelevant to the fact that in Jesus Nazarene circle 12 was the maximum number of Apostles. If 12 weren't a significant number than Ephraim and Mannassah would not be called half tribes so that there would only be 12 tribed after Joseph split.

12 is a sacred number and tribes or Apostles there are "12 Apostles of the Lamb" and 12 of everything in the New Jerusalem of Revelation.

So when this is brought up to evangelists they always recite the definition of apostle while subsequently ignoring the FACT that 12 is the maximum number of Apostles.

Unfortunately Paul and Matthias can't be called half apostles as that would be ridiculous and would have been explained in scripture.

So it is mathematically impossible for Paul to legitimately be an Apostle. my


Calling himself apostle obsessively he has no authority from anyone to do and is definitely not so that means he is a liar who is jealous that he can't be an Apostle and declaring he met Jesus in secret and Christ made him an Apostle to the Gentiles is not sufficient evidence to support the break from tradition (12) and believe Paul who is not ever acknowledged as an Apostle by the Apostles because he is not an Apostle.

That makes Paul a liar. Revelation has strong evidence to support that Paul was a false prophet and a liar and no evidence to support the claims that Paul says were revealed to him by Christ and definitely refutes the possibility of a 13th Apostle.

a reply to: pthena


It's also worth noting that in the Dead Sea Scrolls a community that is nominally connected to Christian origins mentioning the Ebionim, Notzrim and the Way as sects of the Yahad or Community leaving no doubt as to their connection with Christianity also has a structure of 12 leaders and 3 Pillars.

So I highly doubt that tradition was broken to allow for a 13th Apostle who was not liked or trusted by the leader of the sect (James) and was the historical enemy of the Ebionites who considered him an apostate and enemy of the truth and the Way. Theologically after the first century and I am sure while everyone was alive as someone had to keep the tradition for it to last until Rome's great persecutions came along and killed the movement with more than words.

a reply to: Malocchio

Matt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

Sitting on one of those thrones may just be Judas.

Mark 10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. 36And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? 37They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. 38But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? 39And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: 40But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

41And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John. 42But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

So it is mathematically impossible for Paul to legitimately an Apostle.

You are the one applying a 'magical' significance to the word Apostle. I really don't care what is written in Revelation to be quite honest. But:

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Perhaps you can supply the verse I've overlooked which mentions 12 thrones.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Malocchio

Matt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 28And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

Sitting on one of those thrones may just be Judas.

Mark 10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. 36And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? 37They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. 38But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? 39And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: 40But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.

41And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John. 42But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

So it is mathematically impossible for Paul to legitimately an Apostle.

You are the one applying a 'magical' significance to the word Apostle. I really don't care what is written in Revelation to be quite honest. But:

Magical, really? It's not me applying the concept but the New Testament itself so don't blame me for being aware of what it says because you know it does and have no academic refutation you use the term magical applied to the number 12 as if that proves that the Bible doesn't say there are 12 Apostles.

Only it does say it in the Gospels and in Revelation the Vision of New Jerusalem.

You don't care yet you are invested in debating whether or not it has evidence that there are only 12 Apostles or whatever your issue is, it's unclear as you practically just quoted an unrelated portion of scripture to make it appear that something in it is relevant to anything I have discussed previously and I don't see the point of even quoting it as you didn't offer a comment on what it says you are just aggressively combating me because I have done such a thorough job in backing up my arguments.

Your use of the word magical to make my point that 12 is the maximum number of Apostles is just arrogance as I didn't invent the 12 Apostles I just am aware that there are only 12.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Perhaps you can supply the verse I've overlooked which mentions 12 thrones.

Perhaps you can tell me why you think that I said 12 thrones or are saying that I said 12 thrones when I said "12 Apostles of the Lamb" and never said thrones.

Again, it's the Vision of New Jerusalem in Revelation that has the 12 gates and 12 of everything it mentions including the names of the 12 Apostles of the Lamb.

Revelation 21:14

And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.


I have provided the verse you have overlooked in the book you ''dont care what it says in" and corrected your misquote of me as thrones was not something I said.

That pretty much settles the topic on 12 Apostles, although you can just disregard Revelation as easy as you discarded my actual words and misrepresented what I said.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Text Hey ti was you claiming paul said he was the 13th or 14th apostle I merely showed that Jesus called none of them Apostles. That was done by the writers of the NT gospel books.

Point well said.
As Judas the disciple of Jesus died and was replaced i have another question to ask.

Historians agree with the death of King Herod [Agrippa] as being 44CE. The disciple James [the son of Zebedee] is known as one of the twelve just as Judas Iscariot was also known as one of the twelve. Most all scholars believe that this disciple James was beheaded by King Agrippa in the last year of Agrippa's life [44CE]. That left ten of the original of the twelve and the replacement Matthias which adds to eleven. Now if it is so important to have twelve Apostles why then was not James replaced? Or was he replaced?

All of the eleven NT Apostles were alive at this time of James' death and we are also looking at the disciple Paul as being converted seven years before James was killed. Now according to my above post in which the disciples were sent out two by two, you can note that James and Matthew were sent out as a team and Paul and Peter were also sent out as a team. By this we can realize that this event was before King Agrippa died in 44CE. Saul was converted about 37 CE and was well accepted and was teaching and preaching a good seven years before James died. He had the hand of fellowship by the entire congregation of the Jerusalem church.

My contention is that Paul replaced James and called his authority as the thirteenth Apostle in due respect and honor to James. Why should I assume all of this? Because of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that were given to the Nazarene movement in that upper room of the first synagogue of Christ Jesus.

The Gifts of the Holy Spirit were given to the Nazarene's to advance and protect the movement [1st Corinthians 12:7-12.
One of the gifts was that of discernment.

1Corinthians 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

All of these gifts were given to the congregation of James and were not suppressed as they are today. Paul had met the congregation of James and was greeted as a brother [Acts 21:17-20].

My point is that the Holy Spirit [The Most High] gave the gift of discernment to His congregation as protection against evil entering and destroying the movement. Paul could not have been a false Apostle and not have been discovered by the congregation. Therefore Malocchio claims he is wiser than The Most High EL in that the Most High who gave the gifts could not discern a false prophet. Shake the dust from your feet Chester John. It is fruitless.