1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Apple Sugar, Oct 6, 2014.

  1. Apple Sugar

    Apple Sugar Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    322
    Ratings:
    +28
    [youtube]OmkwcGAt3XQ[/youtube]
    The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians - YouTube

    Christians, labeled so well after Jesus died, are to be Jews if they're to follow the actual Yeshua of Hebrew prophecy.

    This is a "make your video if you can type" video but it is interesting in that it demonstrates where Paul got a lot of his lines for his alleged epistles(letters) to the churches he himself founded.
    [youtube]fgZ10clhUKQ[/youtube]
    Paul of Tarsus the False Apostle Confuses Yeshua Quotes with Greek Playwrights Sayings - YouTube

     
  2. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Nuttier than rat crap in a pistachio factory.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Apple Sugar

    Apple Sugar Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    322
    Ratings:
    +28
    I'd appreciate mature respectful replies and input on this thread topic. I look forward to members thoughts. Thanks.
     
  4. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    I was being respectful. :shrug:

    I thought you knew what you were posting, and my remark was directly focused on that material. If it doesn't make sense to you, that's not my problem.:eek:

    It's also nothing to me if you'd rather be offended by my criticism of the material rather than interacting with it.
     
    #4 angellous_evangellous, Oct 6, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2014
  5. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,581
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Religion:
    •God of gods•
    Jesus did teach differently than the established Jewish priesthood, that's why so many Jews today are not and would not, become Christians. Different beliefs. Paul didn't 'invent' those differences. The OP theories presented are incorrect imo.
     
  6. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,581
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Religion:
    •God of gods•
    Btw, I noticed that this is in 'Scriptural Debates forum, so without wasting too much time on this, when Jeshua said, "I came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it", it doesn't mean keep the exact same 'rules', He preached against them, remember? He gave 'alternative' rules. Now, armed with that knowledge, we can surmise that 'fulfill' also implies a change. Otherwise He wouldn't have given us alternative teachings. That would make no sense.
     
  7. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,883
    Nuttier than rat crap in a pistachio factory. ;)

    Agreed

    No credibility
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. savagewind

    savagewind Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    37,575
    Ratings:
    +4,209
    Religion:
    An X-Jehovah's Witness
    At :50 she equates the words of Jesus "I have not come to abolish the law but to fullfill it" with her fact he dd not come to challenge it. Abolish is one thing. Challenge is another.

    He came that the world might be saved. The temple was at one time symbolic of the presence of YHVH. Jesus came to challenge the fact that it was no longer a place fit for YHVH. Saying he did not come to abolish the law cannot rightly have the same meaning as he came to restore and strenghthen obedience to it. His respect for the law means he was not here to challenge a person's dedication to it. People were and are dedicated to obeying the law. It is about that notion that Jesus said "I did not come to abolish it".

    So Paul isn't antichrist. He is uber righteousness. According to the account it was his way to worship The God with excessive zeal before converting and was his way after converting. I believe Paul is in harmony with Christ's teaching excessively which is not sinful but sometimes exceedingly annoying.
     
  9. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,883

    If taken in and presented in context it would be much better.


    Paul was welcomed by all
     
  10. savagewind

    savagewind Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    37,575
    Ratings:
    +4,209
    Religion:
    An X-Jehovah's Witness
    Oh surprise! Who is credible according to you?
     
  11. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Not sure what you mean by context. :rolleyes:

    The one I'm thinking about has the anti-Christ idea coming about at least 40 years after Paul died.

    Nevertheless, I am pleasantly amazed at how far and fast one can run whilst fueled on stupidity and caffeine. For clarity: the stupid one came up with the idea. The [gullible] one spams it.
     
  12. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,581
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Religion:
    •God of gods•
    Don't change any of the previous laws! That being said, although it is said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, no, rather turn the other cheek! :spit:

    I think you get the point.
     
    #12 Desert Snake, Oct 6, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2014
  13. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,883
    Most every professor I know.


    Handful tend to go to far right, and some left. Having and education is the only way to recognize who has deviated from the middle.
     
  14. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    Bullzeye!

    [you cut me deep, Shriek, real deep] haha
     
  15. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,883
    With you there 100%


    Just showing that not everyone liked Paul. 'After" his time he was not universally accepted.

    We have no real evidence from his time. Other then his own reactions to certain Pater Familias he wrote to he had issues with.

    The anti, Definitely not inspired by any of pauls actions or writings.

    :facepalm: it is embarrassing how little some known.
     
  16. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,883
    :D

    And I still have a deep passion for all this. ;)


    The more I learn the more I understand how little I know.
     
  17. savagewind

    savagewind Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    37,575
    Ratings:
    +4,209
    Religion:
    An X-Jehovah's Witness
    Look back far enough and all education came from the uneducated.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Apple Sugar

    Apple Sugar Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    322
    Ratings:
    +28
    So what part of his teaching that not one jot nor tittle of the law was to be changed?
    Jesus arrival as the messiah fulfilled the prophecy of the coming messiah. Meanwhile, heaven and earth are still here. Not passed away as he also said would happen before the law was abolished.

    Paul was not a true apostle of Jesus Christ. Apostle was reserved for those who's feet were washed by the master and who actually walked with him.

    Paul is condemned in Revelation 2:2 when Jesus reminds us that the church of Ephesus, the one church in what we today call Turkey, charged with trying those who claimed to be Christ appointed apostles. He was proven a liar there.

    After his supposed conversion on the road to Damascus, accounted three different ways in the new testament, Saul avoided the Disciples of Christ for years. He repeatedly said in his letters as he was delivering his messages to the churches he founded that he was not lying.... Why would he have to proclaim that if he was to be taken seriously.

    He was also a Pharisee, by his own admission. He didn't account himself a former Pharisee. He proclaimed himself to be a Pharisee. Paul was also a Roman citizen.
    (Acts 23:6 But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!")

    The Pharisee whom Jesus called a brood of vipers in Matthew 23:3.
    Is one to believe he would then call one to his service after he'd departed earth back to the Father having warned the disciples not to believe anyone who claimed they met him after his ascension?

    Jesus warned against Paul while here in his earthly Ministry. Against Paul and others like him, which we see today in the false teachers on TV and elsewhere.

    Think on Paul and his proclamation that he, after he hunted down, prosecuted and executed early Christians, professed himself converted on the road to Damascus. (A copy of many other pagan myths). He saw a light, heard a voice, it identified itself as Jesus. Then recall what Jesus himself said about such things happening when Saul/Paul never knew Jesus while he ministered on earth. Never heard him preach.

    Matthew 24:23-26 (AKJV)Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.



    Then recall what Jesus said about wolves in sheeps clothing that are also false teachers.


    Matthew 24:24
    For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.




    Now remember Paul and his profession of "proof" he was a true apostle in his epistle (letter) to the churches in Corinth.

    1 Corinthians 12:12
    Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds
     
  19. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,581
    Ratings:
    +1,676
    Religion:
    •God of gods•
    I'm not entirely sure of what your argument is. are you saying that Paul is not a Christian, or just not a real apostle. Are you saying that Paul changed the purported teachings of the early Christians, are you saying that Chrisitans should be following all the torah laws, or practicing 'Judaism', etc.
    I was responding to the first vid you presented
     
Loading...