Christianity's true founder, Paul, admits fabrication

[786]

Paul didn't even write the biography of Jesus. He wasn't part of the thousands who heard Him speak and testified of His works either.

Besides, I'm done addressing 786 so-called 'contradictions'. It seems like he posts a thread of 'contradictions' every other day which almost to my unhappiness turn out to be horribly biased/misguided interpretations of a rather obvious text.

Either way, I don't know if any of you have heard of this, but although Paul wrote most of the books in the NT, I hear that he is not responsible for penning the greatest volume in the NT. This should be great evidence to those who think Paul is the founder of Christianity.

You said that only Peter and James applied to the words "the apostles". I had posted to that, but you didn't answer back.I don't think you read my post. Please go back and read that post and answer back. But here is another contradiciton. Look

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Galatians 1:15-23

Paul claims he only met Peter, and James. Now my question here is that what about Barnabas? Wasn't Barnabas, a apostle aswell? If Barnabas was the one, who stood up for Paul, then how did Paul never meet Barnabas?

Read the Following verse.

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29

"Barnabas took him". Thus Paul did indeed saw Barnabas. But in Galatians, Paul saw no apostle except Peter and James. Could you explain this?

 

[§outh§tar]

This is concerning 4.

All apostles were present.

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29

Sorry I did not see this one earlier.

The 'apostles' in it's context does not refer to ALL twelve. If I said I was going to see the Americans, you would not think I was going to see every single American, so why would you think that 'the apostles' refers to every single apostle, especially when it says that only Peter and James were met?

 

[786]

Sorry I did not see this one earlier.

The 'apostles' in it's context does not refer to ALL twelve. If I said I was going to see the Americans, you would not think I was going to see every single American, so why would you think that 'the apostles' refers to every single apostle, especially when it says that only Peter and James were met?

Here is part of the verse. "he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him"

This shows tha All disciples were there. So when Barnabas took up for him, he brought Paul back to the Apostles. To convince them about Paul's conversion.
Read the verse from Acts to read in context.

 

[§outh§tar]

You said that only Peter and James applied to the words "the apostles". I had posted to that, but you didn't answer back.I don't think you read my post. Please go back and read that post and answer back. But here is another contradiciton. Look

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Galatians 1:15-23

Paul claims he only met Peter, and James. Now my question here is that what about Barnabas? Wasn't Barnabas, a apostle aswell? If Barnabas was the one, who stood up for Paul, then how did Paul never meet Barnabas?

You really are trying hard to find a contradiction, but there simply isn't one.

If you were going to see your three friends (Jack, James, Jim) in America and on the way you met Jim, and Jim took you to meet the other two. Well, if you were writing a letter, of course you will say that when you got to the place, you met Jack and James, because you did not meet Jim at the place.

You see, if Paul had said that he met Peter, James, and Barnabas at the place, then you would still complain that it is a contradiction since he didn't really meet Barnabas at the place.

Read the Following verse.

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29

"Barnabas took him". Thus Paul did indeed saw Barnabas. But in Galatians, Paul saw no apostle except Peter and James. Could you explain this?

It seems like I have to explain the same thing twice..

Again, since he had already met Barnabas on the way, he was acquainted with him (after all Barnabas introduced and vouched for him to Peter and James).

Now when Paul gets to Peter and James, he meets ONLY Peter and James. He does not meet Barnabas and that cannnot logically be true since Barnabas came with him and he already knew Barnabas.

 

[786]

I don't think you are reading the verse carefully. Barnabas didn't meet him on the way.

Paul came to Jerusalem, all the disciples were afraid, but then Barnabas went and brought him back.

So indeed he did meet Barnabas in Jerusalem, not along the way. But according to the other verse Paul met Peter, and James ONLY in Jerusalem. You really don't get it huh?

First time you said that All the Apostles weren't present. Then I showed you that all were there, it says in the verse that all of them were afraid. Then I say that he had to have met Barnabas in Jerusalem cause it says so. But on the other hand he claims only to have met Peter and James in Jerusalem.

You really don't get get it huh?
Another question is if all of them were present in Jerusalem. Then why Barnabas would only take Paul to Peter and James. Use some common sense aswell as verses.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§outh§tar: You really are trying hard to find a contradiction, but there simply isn't one.

You see, if Paul had said...
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: It seems like I have to explain the same thing twice..
*************
M*W: Why? When nobody wanted to hear your first explanation!
*************
SourStar: Again, since he had already met Barnabas....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...on the way, he was acquainted with him....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...(after all Barnabas introduced and....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: Now when Paul gets to Peter and James....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...he meets ONLY Peter and James....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: He does not meet Barnabas and....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...that cannnot logically be true....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...since Barnabas came with him....
*************
M*W: "blah, blah, blah...."
*************
SourStar: ...and he already knew Barnabas....
*************
M*W: How can you presume to know WHAT Paul said? If you didn't hear it first-hand, it's hearsay, and hearsay won't hold up in a court of law today. You presume to know exactly what YOU think Paul might have said some 2,000 years ago! Paul was a liar from the git-go...but this is who you believe speaks the truth about xianity! You just reconfirmed for me why I am not a xian!

 

[§outh§tar]

M*W: How can you presume to know WHAT Paul said?

eisegesis
Thrusting a foreign meaning into the text.


I am going strictly by what the text supplies. He is trying to make an interpretation based on what the text doesn't say, which is eisegesis. I'm not presuming what Paul said, only basing my statement on what the text provides.

You would do the same thing in reading any other book. You wouldn't try to interpret any part of the book by what the author did not say, but what the author did say.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§our§tar:eisegesisThrusting a foreign meaning into the text.
*************
M*W: You said, "Thrusting a FOREIGN MEANING into the text?" This isn't truthful, logical or sane!
*************
SourStar: I am going strictly by what the text supplies. I'm not presuming what Paul said, only basing my statement on what the text provides.
*************
M*W: Then you're PRESUMING! How do you know your bible has been translated and transcribed without human error? You can't. You're PRESUMING it is!
*************
SourStar: You would do the same thing in reading any other book. You wouldn't try to interpret any part of the book by what the author did not say, but what the author did say.
*************
M*W: Yes, by reading OTHER BOOKS, and learning everything I can, WITHOUT PRESUMING, this is where I have come to believe the truths I believe. The bible has been misinterpreted, mistranslated, and mistranscribed all from human errors. This is NOT A PRESUMPTION, it is fact, and it's recorded everywhere! You PRESUME the bible to be a literal (factual) translation, but it's not. At best, it's allegorical (fictional). Therefore, what YOU PRESUME to be the truth is not the truth but the source of all lies! Your truths are based on millenia of scribal errors which you continue to believe! Go ahead and believe whatever you want, but stop posting your scriptural lies here!

 

[§outh§tar]

M*W: You said, "Thrusting a FOREIGN MEANING into the text?" This isn't truthful, logical or sane!

In that case, look up the word for yourself in the dictionary. How can a definition not be "truthful, logical or sane"??

M*W: Then you're PRESUMING! How do you know your bible has been translated and transcribed without human error? You can't. You're PRESUMING it is!

The issue he is having does not have to do with translation errors. It has to do with the text, and thus, it is only logical that we discuss the issue according to the text. Unless of course you know ANY manuscript at all that says differently to support your theory of errors in copying, which I doubt you do.

 

[786]

eisegesis
Thrusting a foreign meaning into the text.


I am going strictly by what the text supplies. He is trying to make an interpretation based on what the text doesn't say, which is eisegesis. I'm not presuming what Paul said, only basing my statement on what the text provides.

You would do the same thing in reading any other book. You wouldn't try to interpret any part of the book by what the author did not say, but what the author did say.

Where does it say that Barnabas met Paul along the way? You aren't going in order. First Paul comes in Jerusalem where he finds that all the Apostles are afraid, THEN Barnabas takes him back to the Apostles. So Paul did indeed meet Barnabas in Jerusalem not just Peter, and James.

 

[§outh§tar]

Acts 9:27

27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus.

Obviously you haven't been reading the verses you have been questioning. How else would Barnabas have known about Paul's story unless he already knew Paul?

 

[786]

The conversion of Paul was popular. But in the same way I can ask you this question.
Why would Barnabas be afraid, if he knew Paul.

"And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him"

"All" here is the keyword

 

[786]

Even the Judea Church heard. It isn't any astonishment that Barnabas knew of Pauls story. Does that mean the whole Judea church was with Paul, becuase they heard of his conversion. NO!

"And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."

 

[§outh§tar]

"And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him"

"All" here is the keyword

Well, if "all" really is the keyword, then you would only conclude that all the disciples were in Jerusalem, which is not true as I have already shown. There is no evidence, what more, in the text, that "all" refers to every single disciples, as opposed to the disciples that were present.

If you take it in context of Paul joining himself to the disciples, you can only conclude that the disciples that he tried to associate with were ALL afraid of him. That is quite different from ALL the disciples being present at the time.

----------------------

To put it concisely:

"And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."

I will address your second post as well here in relation to the previous one so that it doesn't seem like I'm repeating myself.

Obviously the churches in Judea had heard of Paul's story and knew of his notorious persecutions. Now if that is the case, we can only conclude that the Christians in Jerusalem also knew of Paul's notoriety (26). Now when the verse talks about Paul coming to Jerusalem, it refers to ALL the Christians being afraid of him. After all, it is not logical that only Peter and James would be the only skeptics (23) as even the Jews tried to kill him. The same way if in the Holocaust, a German officer went into a room full of Jews, not only two Jews would be afraid, but they ALL would be afraid.

 

[786]

Well, if "all" really is the keyword, then you would only conclude that all the disciples were in Jerusalem, which is not true as I have already shown. There is no evidence, what more, in the text, that "all" refers to every single disciples, as opposed to the disciples that were present.

If you take it in context of Paul joining himself to the disciples, you can only conclude that the disciples that he tried to associate with were ALL afraid of him. That is quite different from ALL the disciples being present at the time.

----------------------

To put it concisely:



I will address your second post as well here in relation to the previous one so that it doesn't seem like I'm repeating myself.

Obviously the churches in Judea had heard of Paul's story and knew of his notorious persecutions. Now if that is the case, we can only conclude that the Christians in Jerusalem also knew of Paul's notoriety (26). Now when the verse talks about Paul coming to Jerusalem, it refers to ALL the Christians being afraid of him. After all, it is not logical that only Peter and James would be the only skeptics (23) as even the Jews tried to kill him. The same way if in the Holocaust, a German officer went into a room full of Jews, not only two Jews would be afraid, but they ALL would be afraid.

You can stick to your interpretations. Because they really don't make any sense, to me. So just leave it.

 

[skywalker]

How about we just nail this subject with some more sources and no no one is talking about contradictions in bible. Look for your self and deicde like some one said earlier.

SAUL THE LIAR

 

[Leo Volont]

Apparently Luke, the author of the "Book of Acts" was concerned more with a convenient work of Propaganda, than with the Truth. Remember, the Book of Acts was written well after all the main players had already been killed or martyred. We should also remember that a great deal of time and expense went into copying books (they did not have Printing Presses or Copying Machines) and so Luke may have been tempted to 'streamline' the Truth a bit.

But we do need to wonder about Paul's integrity. His letters provide an endless litany of Paul denying accusation after accusation. He must have been accused often of being a Liar and an Embezzler or he would not have felt the need to always be denying it.

Also, even in the Book of Acts we have two versions of the Conversion -- once in Chapter 9, and again in Chapter 22. Even Luke does not bother to keep the Stories straight. Apparenly Luke is willing to show Paul as a liar in at least one rendition of the Story. The chief difference is that in the First Story we are told that there are Witnesses who hear the Voice in the Sky talking to Paul. But in Chapter 22, we have Paul freely admitting before the Court of his Old Buddies the Pharisees that nobody heard a thing... and that for all anybody really knew, Paul simply fell off his horse.

 

[battig1370]

Christianity's true founder is Saul/St.Paul's Lord Jesus Christ, 'the Mystery Christ' how is the personality of the beast.

Example:

Saul/St.Paul's revelation of his Lord Jesus Christ's power to destroy and kill.
---" And to you who are trouble rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire "taking vengeance" on them that know not God and the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be "punished with everlasting destruction" from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and admired in all them that believed ( because our testimony among you was believed ) in that day. --- And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and "shall destroy" with brightness of his coming.-( 2 Thess 1:7-10, and 2:8 )

St.John's Revelation of the beast's power to destroy and kill.
---" And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly would was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, --- And he had power to give life unto The Image of the Beast, that The Image of the Beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship The Image of the Beast should be killed. (Rev.13:12-13 and 15)

JESUS said, "Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them." ( Matthew 7:15-20 ) --- ( fruits --> the result of action ) JESUS said, HE would pray to the FATHER that HE would send another Comforter, not a Beast that calls himself the Lord Jesus Christ.

As you notice above, it is written that those who worship Saul's Lord Jesus Christ, and those who worship the beast are of the same wicked Spirit, because they will do the same, they will take vengeance, causing everlasting destruction, kill and destroy with fire and cause massive suffering which will be worse than your worst nightmare. When Saul/St.Paul's Christ is revealed to be the Beast, those that worship this Beast will no longer be able to abstain from the appearance of evil, the sheep's clothing will be removed from the wolves, then by their fruits you shall know them. Those that worship the beast who is also Saul/St.Paul's Lord Jesus Christ "shall make war with The Lamb of the Second Coming , and the Lamb shall overcome them: for He is LORD of LORDS, and KING of KINGS, and they that are with Him are called, and chosen, and faithful." ( Rev. 17:14). The Lamb of the Second Coming "had a name written, that no man knew, but He himself" - (Rev.19:12).

Peace be with you, Paul