The DeviL (the Beast) claimed to be Jesus

M*W: I, too, understand why religions were created and why they seem 'rational' to their believers, but they are not rational to me.
**************
Yorda: Yeah... what's true for me doesn't have to be true for you. The paths are endless, but they go to the same goal.
**************
M*W: You seem to be a person who has been blessed with great faith and understanding. If you're interested, I have some ocean front property in Colorado that you would find lovely.
**************
Yorda: m...? I like the ocean but Colorado is probably thousands of miles from me and I don't know how to move there because I'm young.
I go to sleep now...
 
Why is it that it is so important for you to believe that Paul was telling the Truth -- that paul either saw Jesus, or saw the Devil pretending to be Jesus. Isn't it easier simply to suppose that Paul was the devil and was making up a story to contradict Jesus, just as the Prophet Simeon had prophesized?

You need to remember that paul never quoted Jesus even once, and that Paul's teachings are in flat contradiction to Christ's. Then you need to understand that all of the Real Apostles quite disagreed with Paul's Doctrines. Look at the Book of Rev, Chapter 2 to the Church of Ephesus, we have the Angel of God congratulating them for rejecting Paul the False Apostle. This agrees with Paul's own letter to the Ephesians where he insistes that he is an Apostle, and then Paul's letter to Timothy where he admits that the Ephesians rejected his claims and ran him out of town.

Now, we can't both believe in Christ and the the Church of the Real Apostles who rejected Paul and his False Teachings, and still believe in Paul. But that is exactly what the Protestant Church's are doing... placing Paul before Christ.
 
Very interesting. I'm not a big fan of Paul myself but I don't necessarily think he is wrong.

Paul does quote Jesus in 1 Cor 11:24-25. One reason Paul may not quote Jesus is that the gospels might not yet have been written - its hard to quote something which hasn't been written yet.

Paul is not necessarily the apostle spoken of in Rev 2 - it may be that Paul's adversary, named Alexander the coppersmith in 2 Timothy 4, was the false apostle - or it might be yet someone else. I think you are making some assuptions which are not warrented by the verses you quote.

I do agree, that some of Paul's teaching could be read as opposed to the teachings of Jesus - like, are we under the Law or not? However, if you read Paul as saying we are not under the Law in the sense that the Law has no more power to kill us, but we should still obey the Law - then such discrepencies go away. Paul is, after all, quite ready to quote the Law when it suits him.
 
Medicine Woman, I like your humor, I pretty near fell off my chair laughing when I read what you wrote to Yorda, "You seem to be a person who has been blessed with great faith and understanding. If you're interested, I have some ocean front property in Colorado that you would find lovely."

Peace be with you, Paul
 
David F. said:
Paul does quote Jesus in 1 Cor 11:24-25. One reason Paul may not quote Jesus is that the gospels might not yet have been written - its hard to quote something which hasn't been written yet.
Click to expand...

Paul quotes Jesus in 1 Cor 11:24-25 only so that he can subvert his doctrine in the next verse. He quotes Jesus in the establishment of the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, then Paul goes on to say that nobody is worthy of taking the Sacrament and that it would turn to poison in people's mouths and so it would be better if the Sacrament were discontinued. The Church uses that Pauline Quote today in order to restrict the Holy Sacrament. Protestants have largely used the verse to do exactly what paul advised, which was to discontinue offering the sacrament altogether. So, do you think it counts as 'quoting Jesus' when He is quoted simply for the sake of being refuted?

Also, you suggest that Paul could be a follower of Christ without knowing single teaching or word of Christ. You are supposing that NOBODY knew anything of the teachings of Christ until after 70 AD when all of a sudden the 4 Gospels came out of nowhere. That shows a remarkable lack of insight. Religious Teachings come first. They are organized only secondarily. For instance, I was speaking of a Religious Teacher named Ramakrishna on another thread. He was very influencial in India in the last Century. Initially it was all 'buzz' -- everybody was talking about him and passing one quotes that they had heard. Nothing was organized... not at first. Only later were the 'saying' collected and organized. Biographies written. But all the writing could only happen after there was already a huge popular demand and something of general sense of what had been said. People bought the book after they already knew basically what was said in it.

If paul did not know what Christ taught, than why do we care what he thinks? Christians must confront the question of whether they are indeed worshipping Christ or simply worshipping the counterfeit coin, Paul. If you are willing to say that Paul was inspired by God without having the least idea of what Christ taught, then you have quite made Paul your Messiah. You picked your Master, and it isn't Jesus.
 
okinrus: "There were Christians before Paul."

Battig1370: "Act 11:26 > "And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people; And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" This is the first time Christians are mentioned in the whole New Testament."

The Christian Movement started with Saul/St.Paul, and the genesis of the Christian Movement happened on the road to Damascus.

Jesus had nothing to do with Saul/St.Paul's Christian Movement.

Peace with be you, Paul
 
Leo Volont said:
Paul quotes Jesus in 1 Cor 11:24-25 only so that he can subvert his doctrine in the next verse. He quotes Jesus in the establishment of the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, then Paul goes on to say that nobody is worthy of taking the Sacrament and that it would turn to poison in people's mouths and so it would be better if the Sacrament were discontinued. The Church uses that Pauline Quote today in order to restrict the Holy Sacrament. Protestants have largely used the verse to do exactly what paul advised, which was to discontinue offering the sacrament altogether. So, do you think it counts as 'quoting Jesus' when He is quoted simply for the sake of being refuted?

Also, you suggest that Paul could be a follower of Christ without knowing single teaching or word of Christ. You are supposing that NOBODY knew anything of the teachings of Christ until after 70 AD when all of a sudden the 4 Gospels came out of nowhere. That shows a remarkable lack of insight. Religious Teachings come first. They are organized only secondarily. For instance, I was speaking of a Religious Teacher named Ramakrishna on another thread. He was very influencial in India in the last Century. Initially it was all 'buzz' -- everybody was talking about him and passing one quotes that they had heard. Nothing was organized... not at first. Only later were the 'saying' collected and organized. Biographies written. But all the writing could only happen after there was already a huge popular demand and something of general sense of what had been said. People bought the book after they already knew basically what was said in it.

If paul did not know what Christ taught, than why do we care what he thinks? Christians must confront the question of whether they are indeed worshipping Christ or simply worshipping the counterfeit coin, Paul. If you are willing to say that Paul was inspired by God without having the least idea of what Christ taught, then you have quite made Paul your Messiah. You picked your Master, and it isn't Jesus.
Click to expand...
I did not at all mean to say that Paul did not know what Jesus taught. Jesus mostly taught OT ideas in a new way. His teachings were well known but they were oral at that time, not written.

The idea that the Gospels came after 70AD is an old, easily refuted, idea. The gospels were quite obviously written within 10-20 years of Jesus resurrection. Mark and Matthew were written first, then Luke first writes his gospel and then later writes Acts. Acts becomes a running diary toward the end where it stops about 55-60AD with Paul going to prison in Rome. It is not clear when the Gospel of John was written other than it was finished prior to John writing Revelations in the early 60AD period. Paul's writings started in the same time frame as the first gospels. However, there is a geographic difference. The Jewish-Christian books were written in Jerusalem or later in Antioch while Paul was traveling throughout Asia-Minor and Greece. This may not seem far to us, but back then dissemination of written copies would be very slow and Paul, as an outsider, would be one of the last to get a copy.

Paul's comments about communion are quite obviously cautionary and in no way attempt to stop communion – repent first (humble yourself) and then, when you are worthy, take communion. I really don't see a problem here. The point is that you accused Paul of NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE quoting Jesus, which obviously is not the case.

I do think you are right on one account - many Christians seem to put the writings of Paul ahead of the writings of the first Apostles - Paul ahead of Jesus. I find this disturbing. In my mind, the OT and gospels come first and then, where appropriate, the writings of Paul. I only trust Paul's writings when I can find agreement with the OT and with the Gospels. If I can't find agreement, then I put aside Paul and wait for better understanding. I don't think I am very typical though.
 
David F.: Paul does quote Jesus in 1 Cor 11:24-25. One reason Paul may not quote Jesus is that the gospels might not yet have been written - its hard to quote something which hasn't been written yet.
*************
M*W: Regarding Paul quoting Jesus. Paul never knew Jesus or hear him speak. Where Paul 'quotes' Jesus, that is simply Paul creating dialog that was never spoken.

The Gospels were written circa 70-100AD. Paul's Epistles were written before the Gospels circa 52-67AD. In another thread I listed the dates Paul's letters were written.
*************
David F.: Paul is not necessarily the apostle spoken of in Rev 2 - it may be that Paul's adversary, named Alexander the coppersmith in 2 Timothy 4, was the false apostle - or it might be yet someone else.
*************
M*W: The reality of it is the impossibility that Paul could have been an apostle of Jesus at all. He was a man of terminallly inflated ego who named himself an apostle of Jesus.

Regarding Revelations and the Gospel of John. Recent biblical scholars have determined that these two books were written in the same visionary style of The Magdalen, which makes sense because Paul did not know Jesus yet wrote untruths about him. I need to go back and read Revelations myself and reinterpret it based on these findings.
*************
David F.: I do agree, that some of Paul's teaching could be read as opposed to the teachings of Jesus - like, are we under the Law or not? However, if you read Paul as saying we are not under the Law in the sense that the Law has no more power to kill us, but we should still obey the Law - then such discrepencies go away. Paul is, after all, quite ready to quote the Law when it suits him.
*************
M*W: According to MM et al. in the Gnostic Gospels, when Jesus was asked about the law, he said no new laws were needed, that there were already enough laws to obey. (Not quoted). My question is this: Did Jesus truly speak of the two greatest laws or was that more of Paul's imaginary license?

David, I don't mean to pick on you, but you have posted some interesting posts, and I felt compelled to reply to them.
 
battig1370: Medicine Woman, I like your humor, I pretty near fell off my chair laughing when I read what you wrote to Yorda, "You seem to be a person who has been blessed with great faith and understanding. If you're interested, I have some ocean front property in Colorado that you would find lovely."

Peace be with you, Paul
*************
M*W: Thanks, Paul! Happy New Year
 
David F.: Jesus mostly taught OT ideas in a new way. His teachings were well known but they were oral at that time, not written.
*************
M*W: From the Gnostic Gospels, Jesus taught what MM had taught him -- metaphysical beliefs of "becoming fully human" as finding a balance in body, mind and spirit. In MM's case, Jesus told her she "needed to become male" to be fully human. I haven't read them all, but I'm working on it. I'm just throwing these bits and pieces in not to refute what you've posted but just as a reply.
*************
David F.: The idea that the Gospels came after 70AD is an old, easily refuted, idea. The gospels were quite obviously written within 10-20 years of Jesus resurrection. Mark and Matthew were written first, then Luke first writes his gospel and then later writes Acts. Acts becomes a running diary toward the end where it stops about 55-60AD with Paul going to prison in Rome. It is not clear when the Gospel of John was written other than it was finished prior to John writing Revelations in the early 60AD period. Paul's writings started in the same time frame as the first gospels. However, there is a geographic difference. The Jewish-Christian books were written in Jerusalem or later in Antioch while Paul was traveling throughout Asia-Minor and Greece. This may not seem far to us, but back then dissemination of written copies would be very slow and Paul, as an outsider, would be one of the last to get a copy.
*************
M*W: Just curious, can you provide a reference for the dates you quoted for the NT writings? Also, what do you mean by Paul being an "outsider?"
*************
David F.: Paul's comments about communion are quite obviously cautionary and in no way attempt to stop communion – repent first (humble yourself) and then, when you are worthy, take communion. I really don't see a problem here. The point is that you accused Paul of NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE quoting Jesus, which obviously is not the case.
*************
M*W: Since Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh nor vice versa, it was impossible for Paul to truthfully quote Jesus.
*************
David F.: I do think you are right on one account - many Christians seem to put the writings of Paul ahead of the writings of the first Apostles - Paul ahead of Jesus. I find this disturbing. In my mind, the OT and gospels come first and then, where appropriate, the writings of Paul. I only trust Paul's writings when I can find agreement with the OT and with the Gospels. If I can't find agreement, then I put aside Paul and wait for better understanding. I don't think I am very typical though.
*************
M*W: Paul wrote what Paul wrote to make a nice living. Everything boils down to money no matter what it is, a ten cent piece of candy or eternal salvation -- everything has a price. Paul told the story of the Messiah Jesus and he traveled far and wide to do it. He believed it (or pretended to), he preached it, he promoted it, I bet he even cried like Jimmy Swaggart to put emotion into it, and he laughed when he put Gentiles' shekels in his coffers. It was big money traveling around those parts and preaching his story of the dying demigod savior from whom he copied from some other 16+ dying demigod saviors before he created the myth of Jesus. I'm not saying that Jesus, the Nazorene, didn't exist, although that too is debatable. Paul's Jesus was not the same person as the Rabbi Jesus, so he created his main character to be a savior for humanity. I read some years ago about Paul's advertising and marketing endeavors. He had coins and amulets made to sell to the people who were sick or needed healing or hope saying that Jesus' imprint on the amulet would heal them or bring them hope or some kind of a miracle -- even promise them eternal life.

I believe that when one learns the truth about Paul, it tends to make the whole of christianity seem a lot less credible. Most christians don't want to know about Paul for this very reason. If one wants to know the truth about Jesus, read the Gnostic Gospels.
 
Warrior61: "That makes absolutely no sense Saul was killing Christians and trying to destroy it wich is what the Devil's goal is so why would the devil change Him to do the opposite of his goal."

okinrus: "Why do you say it was the Devil? Why would the Devil want Paul to stop persecuting Christians?"

Battig1370: "Saul was killing Christians"? --- "Paul to stop persecuting Christians"? These statements are incorrect according from what is written in Acts 11:26, Saul/St.Paul's "disciples were first called christians in Antioch. Before the time of these first christians there were no one called christians. Men ans women that were of 'the Way' were called 'disciples of the Lord'.

Act 9:1-2 > "Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the 'disciples of the Lord', went to the high priest and asked a letter from him to the synagogues Damascus, so that if he found any who were of 'the Way', whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem."

( 'the Way' > 'the movement)

'Why' do you say it was the Devil? Before person would understand 'Why', one must know the nature and/or qualities of the Devil mind of Saul and his mystery Jesus, and also one must know the nature and/or qualities of the God mind that Jesus of gospels had. When a person discovers the nature and purpose of Jesus, the Man, that a person will discover that it was the 'Deity' of evil that came to Saul on the road to Damascus.

( 'Deity': supreme being ; > being: nature or essence; > essence: fundamental nature, inherent characteristics. )

Once a person understands the fundamental nature, the inherent characteristics of the beast, that person may know why I say, it was the Devil claiming to be Jesus that came to Saul on the road to Damascus.

Why would the Devil want Paul to stop persecuting the 'disciples of the Lord'? The two questions asked are very much related because if a person knows the characteristics of the beast it would be easy to understand "why would the Devil want Paul to stop persecuting the 'disciples of the Lord'?" WHY? > Saul's methods before the Damascus Road Event was not stoping 'the movement', so being under this stress, the Devil mind of Saul received a vision of a better way to stop 'the movement' of the Lord

The Devil mind of Saul received a vision of a better way to stop 'the movement' of the Lord. To make a long story short, the Beast claiming to be Jesus and Saul highjacked and took over 'the movement' of the Lord and called it christianity. Saul/St.Paul's "disciples were first called christians in Antioch

Peace with be you, Paul
 
Warrior61: "That makes absolutely no sense Saul was killing Christians

Battig1370: I agree because, the very first Christians were the disciples of Saul/St.Paul.

Peace be with you, Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top