The bible exposes Paul as a false apostle.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by 547000

 

How that is supposed to explain why Ephesus,located in biblical Asia.... was commended in revelations, despite having rejected Paul?

edit on 1-12-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Peter was the one that Christ founded His church on. If Peter accepted Paul he couldn't have been a false apostle. Didn't a lady die for lying to the church of God? How could Paul then manage a lie to Peter?

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

First, he employs one of the oldest tricks in the book, presenting a part of the picture as the total picture.

Well, I'm just quoting whats there in the bible.

Now, please enlighten me. What is the "total picture" with regard to Pauls situation with Ephesus... and (biblical) Asia?

Why was Paul rejected by all of Asia? And why was Ephesus (in Asia) being praised in revelations.... for rejecting false Apostles.

Go on... Im waiting.

No, you are NOT "...just quoting whats [sic] there in the Bible." You quote a few things out of context and imply a connection without PROOF.

Here's what the total picture is - not just one, but seven letters which name:

the Nicolaitans
the Jews (who are not)
Satan
Balaam
Jezebel
Paul...no, not there

These are the people named who God does not like. Why was Paul left out? You fail to mention that Paul had been dead for some decades at this time, yes? What you said in your original post should have been in this context, but was not.

So why was Paul rejected by all of Asia? I don't know, and neither do you, or you would have said so. It should be clear on the face of it why the church at Ephesus was praised for rejecting false apostles, but as I said before, no one can prove that Paul was one of them, or (again) you would have done so. You're way out on a poorly-chosen limb here, and I have just about sawed through it. Muddying the waters and side-stepping will not help.

BTW, if II Timothy was a forgery, or Paul was a false apostle, it would have been found out by Ivan Panin when he did his fifty-year-long mathematical analysis of the Bible. But no, that Book is made of "whole cloth" and wholly true.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
BTW, if II Timothy was a forgery, or Paul was a false apostle, it would have been found out by Ivan Panin when he did his fifty-year-long mathematical analysis of the Bible. But no, that Book is made of "whole cloth" and wholly true.

Paul wrote Philippians as well...

Is this book part of that mathematicall analysis as well... and thus also "wholly true"?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Of course Paul did not write revelations. And yeah, Ive just learned that the authenticity of a lot of books by Paul are being disputed.
The idea of forgeries within the bible is BIG, and Im surprised that more christians are not aware of this. They happily quote from Ephesians, 1 timothy and all the other "disputed" books.

I was just talking to my sister, yesterday, about the Gospels and she was shocked to hear that they were not written by people named, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, so it may be true that most Christians don't realize there is a whole field of biblical criticism out there and this has been discussed for the last two hundred years and a lot of advancement has been made in these studies.
I have a book, Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins by David Trobisch which makes a convincing argument for what I referred to earlier, that those first four letters in the New Testament, were prepared for publication by Paul himself. There are three other letters considered to be by Paul, which are Philippians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians, where the last one mentioned may very well be the earliest one written by Paul, which to me speaks badly for the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians, which is known to be very late, so there is not this very short time span between the two letters, as would seem to be implied from reading 2 Thessalonians.

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by 547000

 

How that is supposed to explain why Ephesus,located in biblical Asia.... was commended in revelations, despite having rejected Paul?

edit on 1-12-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Peter was the one that Christ founded His church on. If Peter accepted Paul he couldn't have been a false apostle. Didn't a lady die for lying to the church of God? How could Paul then manage a lie to Peter?

Indeed, not just one person died but 2 people died for lying to the church. Ananias and his wife Sapphira...Acts 5:1-11. Below is a rendition of the story. More accurately it wasn't the church that killed them it was the Holy Spirit. God struck them dead for lying to him because when Peter was questioning them the Holy Spirit was full on him (he was possessed by the Holy Spirit).

www.bellaonline.com...

If Peter accepted Paul then there's no way Paul was an apostate and that is an attempt to cast doubt on a true Apostle of Christ. Paul spent his entire life first hunting down apostates, first it was the jewish apostates who turned christian, and the later half of his life while he was an Apostle he spent much of his time hunting down christian apostates and exposing them. No small wonder they tried to cast doubt on him and they were probably the ones that turned him over to the Romans to be beheaded on the Ostian Road

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

. . . the later half of his life while he was an Apostle he spent much of his time hunting down christian apostates and exposing them.

Really?
You think Paul spent all his time hunting apostates?
I think you just made that up.
Plus, you are referring to Acts as if it was somehow actual history, which is a mistake.
Acts is a story made up long after the fact and is someone's fanciful re-telling of these people who the Christians knew by name but did not know much about biographically.
So there is hardly anything in which is actually historically accurate but only gives us an idea of what people thought in a general way back when the book was written.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
BTW, if II Timothy was a forgery, or Paul was a false apostle, it would have been found out by Ivan Panin when he did his fifty-year-long mathematical analysis of the Bible. But no, that Book is made of "whole cloth" and wholly true.

Paul wrote Philippians as well...

Is this book part of that mathematicall analysis as well... and thus also "wholly true"?

I suspect that is a trick question. I decline to answer, but then, I already have.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
BTW, if II Timothy was a forgery, or Paul was a false apostle, it would have been found out by Ivan Panin when he did his fifty-year-long mathematical analysis of the Bible. But no, that Book is made of "whole cloth" and wholly true.

Paul wrote Philippians as well...

Is this book part of that mathematicall analysis as well... and thus also "wholly true"?

I suspect that is a trick question. I decline to answer, but then, I already have.

Good for you...

Though you don't need to answer the question...

Paul blatantly lies in Philippians about Jesus.... Thus making the book not "wholy true" as you stated

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
BTW, if II Timothy was a forgery, or Paul was a false apostle, it would have been found out by Ivan Panin when he did his fifty-year-long mathematical analysis of the Bible. But no, that Book is made of "whole cloth" and wholly true.

Paul wrote Philippians as well...

Is this book part of that mathematicall analysis as well... and thus also "wholly true"?

I suspect that is a trick question. I decline to answer, but then, I already have.

Good for you...

Though you don't need to answer the question...

Paul blatantly lies in Philippians about Jesus.... Thus making the book not "wholy true" as you stated

Just out of curiosity what is the lie.

reply to post by cloudyday


Glad you asked...

5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

This is a blatant lie... Jesus never once made himself equal with God.

He always said he is greater then himself...

reply to post by Akragon


What about statements like, "He who has seen me has seen the Father"?

I also recall some of the things Jesus said about Himself, the Father, and the Spirit, in his famous prayer in the Garden.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


That does not mean equality my friend... Neither does "i and my father are one"

Just thought i'd deal with that before it comes up

reply to post by Akragon


Please explain further, as I am a bit perplexed by your stance. You never seem far from riddle.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

These are the people named who God does not like. Why was Paul left out?

You state that as if God said "Here is a list of people in the bible I do not like".

Those people were named in context of certain messages towards particular churches.
And what the Ephesus were told is crucial, because they were praised for rejecting false apostles.
And Paul is on record for preaching to the Ephesians, and later getting by all of Asia, where Ephesus is.

So why was Paul rejected by all of Asia? I don't know, and neither do you, or you would have said so. It should be clear on the face of it why the church at Ephesus was praised for rejecting false apostles, but as I said before, no one can prove that Paul was one of them, or (again) you would have done so.

Well, by the same standard, no one can prove that Paul was accepted by the Ephesus, which is crucial to your argument that Paul was not among the false apostles who they rejected.

Basically Paul was NOT among the true prophets that Ephesus did NOT reject. So Paul most likely was just bundled along with all the other false apostles who were rejected by them.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
reply to post by Akragon

 

Please explain further, as I am a bit perplexed by your stance. You never seem far from riddle.

edit on 3-12-2011 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah

If i confuse you perhaps you might need to look deeper into your beliefs and understand what is missing...

Theres nothing that needs to be clairified... Paul misrepresented his saviour/God in his work...

Not only that but you can find him particpating in a stoning within the pages of the bible as well...

I do admire his statements about love, but within his life he did not show what he preached...

And most importantly... he DID NOT know Jesus in person!

This is why i label most of Christianity as Paulianity... simply because he did not teach what his lord did

Paul hijacked the religion and made it his own...

Who can argue this?

I can't count how many Christians try to counter Jesus' words with pauls... I can't believe they dare to do such things... Jesus was truth.... Paul was a liar

Who will attempt to show me im wrong?

WHO?

reply to post by Akragon

And most importantly... he DID NOT know Jesus in person!

This is why i label most of Christianity as Paulianity... simply because he did not teach what his lord did

I agree with this. Christianity should have been about what Jesus taught, but now its become a religion centered around Paul.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Akragon

 

And most importantly... he DID NOT know Jesus in person!

This is why i label most of Christianity as Paulianity... simply because he did not teach what his lord did

I agree with this. Christianity should have been about what Jesus taught, but now its become a religion centered around Paul.

So what specifically are the changes introduced by Paul's teaching? I don't doubt there are many differences, but I haven't thought about this before. I've always thought the non-Pauline epistles were more inspiring though.

reply to post by Akragon


When Paul tells that you must be righteous, he does not contradict Jesus. Jesus' ministry primarily was about telling people to repent and they would be forgiven. There's no salvation without repentance.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Thank you for this post. I found in the bible that Paul may have been a changed man from the vision he saw and he write good material but he not to be trusted by believers in the bible that say you have to go by every word in the bible. Little do all those women know that Paul told them to cover their heads while in a church and if they didn't, they should shave the hair off their head. Screw that BS. People are absolutely stupid, they have a mind smaller than the mind of a sewer rat, if they say to follow every single word in the bible when it has BS like that written from Paul. I love Jesus, but I am sick of people who are ignorant and fight for things they don't even have knowledge or understanding about.