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

[angellous_evangellous]

Some professors know God does exist.

The only thing that professors don't know are things that they forgot that they know.

So all professors know that God exists, yet also know that God doesn't exist because they forgot what led them to believe that God exists. And vice versa.

If God does exist, then professors always knew.

If God does not exist, then professors forgot that God exists.

So whether God exists or not, professors knew it all along.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Bible is a riddle. Do you really think I worship the bible? Rhetorical question, no I don't, so you can check off that your list of arguments.

I already knew that. :foryou:

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..There is how ever evidence in support of all gods being created by man..

No doubt cavemen saw lightning zapping the earth and thought- "There must be one angry dood up there", so no wonder they invented all sorts of gods.
But their "gods" were invisible and never had a front man down on earth, so we know they never existed.
Christianity however, DID have a front man named Jesus who was God's spokesman and a demonstrator of God's miraculous power working through him.
Spot the difference?..

 

[Shuttlecraft]

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

Nah, he was a decent regular guy or he wouldn't have said "don't follow me or anybody else, follow JESUS!"-
"One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?" (1 Cor 1:12/13)

He certainly had some enemies in the early churches (there were fundy halfwits around then as now), and he warned them he was coming to kick their a**-
"I already gave you a warning when I was with you the second time. I now repeat it while absent: On my return I won't spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others" (2 Cor 13:2)

 

[Robert.Evans]

.....A lot of what we have which we call the word of God isn't God's Word because men have changed it to match their own desire......

Is it still not valid?
We are created in the Image of God. Why would he allow us to write it wrong. Perhaps we don't understand what we read, and therefore wish to change it. Perhaps we see the problem but not the answer

 

[Robert.Evans]

I wonder if you can admit to the forum community here your stand that if you have not witnessed something is true it isn't, according to you? Am I understanding you correctly?

You have no reason to believe the truth of The Lord so it isn't true. Is this a correct assessment? God hasn't appeared to outhouse which means God hasn't appeared to anyone. Am I right?

Please do not feel picked on. It is a public forum. At least I think it is. So the question can be asked of anyone with the same mindset. Is it true that nothing is real unless You know it is?

Haha... that appears to be the mindset of an atheist for sure... I didn't see it, so it ain't happened!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Some professors know God does exist.

Correct! Francis Collins for one... top scientist. If you take all the scientifici world, it is nearly half (from a selective survey) that believe in God.

 

[savagewind]

God does not exist scientifically, because there is no evidence to observe.


There is how ever evidence in support of all gods being created by man.

Your god a compilation of two gods, combined with the lack of biblical credibility due to the many historical factual errors, and of followers reading mythology literally.

There is no such thing as coincidence. I hear you. In other words it is not possible to imagine something that is real. If it is imagined it is not real and if it is real it can't be imagined.

 

[savagewind]

Is it still not valid?
We are created in the Image of God. Why would he allow us to write it wrong. Perhaps we don't understand what we read, and therefore wish to change it. Perhaps we see the problem but not the answer

A changed scripture is not valid. But it is still real. Just like a person can repent and do good a scripture can do that too. A changed scripture should not be removed and it hasn't been. It should be looked at differently.

They have eyes but they won't see, ears but they won't hear.

 

[Tabb]

[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

​

I think you bought up an excellent point. European Christianity was very much compromised to appeal to the conversion of pagans while keeping its allegiance to Rome. Saul was on Rome's payroll to stamp out the new faith that was beginning to take hold in the Empire. This whole subject is so complex and fraught with political tampering by the Roman Empire that the Christianity that the majority of Christians practice is a far cry from what was the original religion that sprung up as a result of Yeshua's teachings. I do see Paul(Saul) as Islam calls him, "The deceiver of the Christians".

 

[Robert.Evans]

A changed scripture is not valid. But it is still real. Just like a person can repent and do good a scripture can do that too. A changed scripture should not be removed and it hasn't been. It should be looked at differently.

They have eyes but they won't see, ears but they won't hear.

I can agree with most of that... but i still think that a changed Scripture is valid. The OT is replete with them, and that makes it the complete writings that we see. I am not convinced, as you, that there is error that much in the NT. I know there are some, but I do not see them as being a problem. In that sense I can still see them as valid... to me they have to be. If not, then it is not the word of God. And if not, then what is it?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..I do see Paul(Saul) as Islam calls him, "The deceiver of the Christians".

That's just another conspiracy theory that can easily be blown out of the water!
For example there was no possible MOTIVE for him to want to deceive anybody..

 

[sojourner]

What? Paul might have told HIS FRIENDS. And his friends told friends. Until someone called Luke wrote it down. Duh? Paul's letters were not to his friends. Paul's letters were to people wanting to know Christ, not wanting to know Paul.

You said that "it's all guesswork" as to purpose of writing. I said that we know Luke's purpose in writing was to set forth a history.

Please try to stay on task here.

 

[sojourner]

A changed scripture is not valid.

It's not? Why not? Why does editing change its validity? Validity with regard to what? What properties render a text valid or invalid?

 

[savagewind]

I can agree with most of that... but i still think that a changed Scripture is valid. The OT is replete with them, and that makes it the complete writings that we see. I am not convinced, as you, that there is error that much in the NT. I know there are some, but I do not see them as being a problem. In that sense I can still see them as valid... to me they have to be. If not, then it is not the word of God. And if not, then what is it?

God is head of every man means God is head of every thought. There is a time to build up thought and a time to tear it down. The introduction into the scriptures of men's thoughts was according to the headship of God which means at the time it was acceptable, like an experiment. In this respect you are right.

Mistakes need maintenance. Truth needs no maintenance. Truth just IS. Maintenance requires WORK. Do you want to enter into God's rest? You can't enter believing an untruth. They believe it is all true because God did allow it. But YHVH allowed a prophet to deceive a king. Did he not?
"'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' 1 Kings 22:22

 

[savagewind]

You said that "it's all guesswork" as to purpose of writing. I said that we know Luke's purpose in writing was to set forth a history.

Please try to stay on task here.

Are you picking nits? LOL.

 

[Robert.Evans]

God is head of every man means God is head of every thought.

Agree

There is a time to build up thought and a time to tear it down.

If the thought is wrong, agreed

The introduction into the scriptures of men's thoughts was according to the headship of God which means at the time it was acceptable, like an experiment. In this respect you are right.

Ok

Mistakes need maintenance.

But that means there are mistakes... so how is it God's word... that is a great concern for me.

Truth needs no maintenance. Truth just IS.

Agreed

Maintenance requires WORK. Do you want to enter into God's rest? You can't enter believing an untruth.

I believe I am in it. You probably believe i am not. You probably believe you are. That is the nature of the 'I am' which we all are... we are all created in the Image. I agree you can't enter if you have untruth. But there are many levels of consciousness and so many levels of existence (within God).

They believe it is all true because God did allow it. But YHVH allowed a prophet to deceive a king. Did he not?
"'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' 1 Kings 22:22

He did.
This means that the Church, for example, is false (to one degree or another). I have no problem with that. But I would say that within their own level of existence within the consciousness of God, there are right. What we try to attain to is the highest one... that is why the lord said that only way to the Father is through the son. (The Father is masculine not feminine.)

There must be sufficient truth there for us to understand it though. I see truth as a shattered mirror which must be pieced together again. The shards of truth can be found in many places, not just one. That is how they are hidden within the consciousness. Without that, evil would take over from good.

But if we are saying that the word is wrong, we are going against God. My understanding differs from yours in that i see many different realities within the consciousness of God, just as there are many different people.

As you mention 'men ' it sounds almost like you are trying to put a feminine interpretation on what you consider the masculine word. I would say that was the wrong thing to do if that is what youa re saying.

 

[savagewind]

I am in trouble with the orginator of this thread already, falsely, I believe. If I join you any more going off topic like you are Mr. Evans then I will be in trouble with her truely I think. Why not start your own thread?

ps I'd love to hear from her again about her belief I called her a bad name. A retraction would be nice. Will the computer cooperate? I think it never has before.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well to put it back on topic, I don't think he was. The apostles spoke to him, they said he was their brother, they spoke to him and gave him a letter... i see nothing there to say that they thought that he was antichrist. I think it is misunderstanding again. These things are written for us to understand (or not)

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

So it seems that you think the same, he was not. I am sure that anyone can be seen that way if they don't line up with one's own thinking... but it is too strong a title I think