/horror/ - Breaking the Occult Deception

Conspiracy, Memes, Research

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(221.41 KB 1366x768 Jesus2.png)
Apostle paul a deciever Anonymous 09/24/2019 (Tue) 21:48:05 [Preview] No. 3545
Have you ever wondered that Paul may have been an attempt at destroying christianity from the beginning. It makes sense that the enemy would attempt this. Even the bible has been corrupted.
http://endlessworld.org/apostle-paul-the-deceiver-teaches-a-new-doctrine/


Anonymous 09/25/2019 (Wed) 02:29:58 [Preview] No.3546 del
>hebrew calendar
>works based salvation
You're literally no better than people who believes in rituals and karma as the only purpose to life, and "they" seem to get away with doing lots of evil so do you think "you" would be better than evil because you're innocent? Innocence and evil both are ignorant of the root cause of their own suffering and so they will never escape it as long as they don't seek beyond that. Beliefs don't save too, while "faith" in having a relationship with someone you haven't personally met or had deluded yourself to thinking that you have is fundamentally is still "faith", well guess what, it takes "work" to "believe" in something so utterly stupid as works based salvation, so all of those that hate non Anglican Reformed and/or Baptist Christianity for not "believing" in "works" fundamentally don't grasp that they actually do "believe" that the "work" to accept the "faith" is really the "work" of the saved and that continued "work" in the "faith" is the assurance of that initial "work" that the holy spirit moves in the heart and soul of the individuals while also keeping in mind that assurance of faith expressed through the work is nothing to be boasted about. To "keep" the faith, one is encouraged to delude themselves with vain repetitions of rituals and is discouraged from questioning any further than this false dilemma of works vs beliefs and discourages those from seeking wisdom as they misinterpret wisdom as creationism/being and ignorance as atheism/non-being, another false dilemma. Read and re-read the Parmenides until you get how both being and un/nonbeing are fundamentally unreal. You Christians, especially "Messianics" hate the works of Platonists and more importantly the Neoplatonists as well as Advaita Vedanta/Sanatana Dharma.


Anonymous 09/25/2019 (Wed) 02:34:06 [Preview] No.3547 del
i have heard of this. Apparently judas was a deceiver. And as much as i need to read up on the bible apparently the new testament is put together out of chronological order.


Anonymous 09/25/2019 (Wed) 07:20:23 [Preview] No.3549 del
>>3546
James 2:20 never said faith wasn't necessary. Also if faith alone is enough to save explain why zecheriah 13:8-9 when it states that 2/3s of Israel will die. We europeans are Israel no other people fit the promises.


Anonymous 09/26/2019 (Thu) 03:05:22 [Preview] No.3550 del
>>3549
Based on your auto-response, you clearly don't realize that I am not a Christian. To be more specific, I was one but found out that I never was one because Christianity isn't true. I'm just in passing critiquing the lowest common denominator found in any religion which is the whole karmayana nonsense, is just optics cucking virtue signalling nonsense. Go back to Twitter with your Groyper frens.


Anonymous 09/27/2019 (Fri) 05:57:46 [Preview] No.3551 del
its a fair question OP. Apparently there is something going on with all these false gods and temples to strange gods. Goes back to solomon and before that. Now in the mystery traditions they say there is stuff that pre-dates the bible. I don't know so i can't speculate but in general christianity is a good way to face such an openly evil planet.


Anonymous 09/27/2019 (Fri) 06:48:26 [Preview] No.3552 del
Many "Hebrew roots" movements are deceived in thinking that Paul was some corrupter.
Paul is not only the earliest written evidence of Jesus's message, but also taught the Law.


Anonymous 09/27/2019 (Fri) 09:11:46 [Preview] No.3554 del
>>3551
It's not only that. Paul himself is suspicious. His conversion alone should raise eyebrows. He saw light and apparantly said it was Jesus and that his witnesses saw but didn't here. That isn't even the most ridiculous part. He told two different versions
Acts 9 version
"4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink."
Acts 22 version
"6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 11And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus."


Anonymous 10/04/2019 (Fri) 08:28:44 [Preview] No.3562 del
>>3553
Paul never said the Law was abolished. Only that you're not saved by it.
Again, this whole "anti-Paulist" movement is headed by wolves in sheep's clothing.


Anonymous 10/04/2019 (Fri) 10:14:19 [Preview] No.3563 del
>>3562
Ephesians 2:15
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

Also something else that is interesting is that Paul refers to himself as a master builder in 1 corinthians 3:10. Not to mention he calls the followers of his doctrine followers of me in 1 corinthians 4:16. Instead of followers of christ. Jesus states that many people will be decieved by false prophets. Most christians usually reject morons claiming to be prophesied of God. Unless we are talking seventh day adventists. Mormons are only in that cult because of the virgin women. However the only thing they never reject is the pauline epistles. also going to add this incase anyone brings up the peter argument.
https://endchan.net/christianity/res/203.html#281


Anonymous 10/10/2019 (Thu) 10:43:56 [Preview] No.3574 del
>>3563
Ephesians 2:15 only says "law" in English:
https://casefortorah.com/ephesians-214-15.html
>master builder
Right after that, he says
<For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
He isn't exalting himself in any way here.
>followers of me
>Instead of followers of christ
In 1 Corinthians 11:1, he clearly affirms that he meant:
<Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
So yes, you can follow the Law and Commandments while still not rejecting Paul as a false apostle.


Anonymous 10/10/2019 (Thu) 16:51:43 [Preview] No.3575 del
>>3574
>Only says law in english
That is a straight up lie.

In greek the word for nomon/nomos is law.
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/eph2.pdf(in greek as well so you can check yourself.)
https://biblehub.net/searchgreek.php?q=nomon

Now the thing the link you posted was trying to say is that the wall between Jews and gentiles is broken. Either way THAT STILL GOES AGAINST THE WORDS OF JESUS. This is because of a specific verse in scripture.

Matthew 5:18
"For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled."
Here's the verse in greek too
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat5.pdf
So either way not one single letter from the old law excluding the sacrifices because Jesus himself was the sacrifice for our sins. Has passed away. Not you might wonder. But Jesus came to save us all. NO! he didn't in fact he outright told the women who was begging Jesus to help her kid a dog. Plus he only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel which I believe to be Europeans because only Europeans have fulfilled most of the prophecies of the old testament. I.e britain became a company of nations. I'm not a racist and I believe not whites can be saved however what I am against is misceganation and other disgusting acts.
Matthew 15:22-27
22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. 28Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

<Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of christ
That is still paul telling them to follow his doctrines as opposed to Jesus' doctrine. That's like me saying Follow me as I am a monarchist while preaching communism. Just because Paul says something doesn't mean he is telling the truth. Also that would be really flismy. Honestly I am beginning to think Paul was a roman agent. After all he had roman citizenship.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 05:49:29 [Preview] No.3578 del
>>3575
>In greek the word for nomon/nomos is law.
>Now the thing the link you posted was trying to say is that the wall between Jews and gentiles is broken. Either way THAT STILL GOES AGAINST THE WORDS OF JESUS. This is because of a specific verse in scripture.
You clearly haven't read the link. Nomos in this instance doesn't refer to THE Law. The Law of Moses.
<Nomos (the dictionary form of nomon) is the Greek word for law. It can refer to the Torah and in many cases it does. For example, in the Matthew five passage discussed previously, Jesus refers to the Law (nomos) and the Prophets. However, nomos is not limited to the Torah but can also refer to any governing law or set of rules. In his discussion of nomos in The Dictionary of New Testament Background, scholar L.A. Jervis says the following:
< The Greek word usually rendered “law” by the translators of the NT is nomos. This word meant both “law” and “custom” and so could refer to the laws of a society and to that society's habits and customs (632).
<​There are examples even within the New Testament where nomos does not refer to the Mosaic Law. For example, Paul refers to a nomos of works versus a nomos of faith in Romans 3:27. Here Paul uses nomos to point out that some are governed by works whereas others are governed by faith. Even if you think that a nomos of works refers to the Mosaic Law (which is contrary to what the Mosaic Law itself says – see our discussion on Romans 9-11), you must admit that there is an additional nomos of faith. They cannot both refer to the Mosaic Law, but they can each refer to a governing set of rules.
<Similarly, in Romans 8:2, Paul refers to the nomos of sin and death, which is juxtaposed against the nomos of the Spirit of life. One law is based on a government (if you will) of sin and death, the other based on a government of the Spirit. Clearly Paul understood that nomos does not have to refer to the Mosaic Law. He sometimes used it in different ways. Might he have done so in Ephesians 2:15?
<Also, in extra-biblical sources, nomos does not necessarily refer to the Torah. For example, Josephus refers to a “nomos of war” (War 3:363) and a “nomos of nature” (War 3:374). Even within Judaism, nomos does not refer simply to the Torah, but can also refer to the entire Hebrew Bible. Further, nomos can refer to the “two branches of divine revelation—the written Torah and the oral Torah, which are traditionally viewed as having been given to Moses on Mt. Sinai” (Grossfeld, 1242). The oral Torah is separate from the first five books of the Bible. These are extra laws that were set in place by the Pharisees after the return from the Babylonian exile to prevent Israel from going into exile once again. They functioned as a fence to prevent Israel from disobeying the Torah. These laws were by nature more restrictive than the Torah. The idea was that if these were not disobeyed, then the Torah would not be disobeyed. Initially given orally, they were later written down and collected in the Talmud. When Jews refer to the Torah, they are often including the Oral Law.
So no, Paul wasn't saying that the Law was abolished with its commandments. His Epistles are in perfect agreement with Matthew 5.
Romans 7:12.
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good
Paul even instructed the Corinthians not to be disturbed when observing the Sabbath, full moon, etc., because the church in Corinth was clearly following the Law. He never told them to stop following it.
>That is still paul telling them to follow his doctrines as opposed to Jesus' doctrine
He's saying that his doctrine is Jesus's doctrine. Just as for example a national socialists' doctrine is Hitler's doctrine, or that a Bolshevik's doctrine is Lenin's doctrine.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 09:28:04 [Preview] No.3579 del
(95.86 KB 396x360 ephesusmap.png)
>>3578
>Ephesians 2:15 only says "law" in english
<The word for nomon/nomos is law
Alright I'll give you some extra info because remember the ephesians rejected paul and thus we can come to the conclusion that he was talking about the torah. In Revelation chapter 2 Jesus praises the church of Ephesus for denying a person who claimed to be an apostle but was not. Obviously the only person who claimed to be an apostle and went to the ephesus church was PAUL.
Revelation 2
"Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

Firstly I want to explain how to try an apostle to see if his claims are legitimate. In acts 1 the same book where Paul's conversion happened. We are explained how one can be tested to be an apostle.
Acts 1:20-26
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles."
This explains that the requirement to be named an "apostle" is that you must have been with Jesus from his baptism to his taking up from them. Paul doesn't fit this. However let's make the argument that Paul was chosen specifically by Jesus which would make the apostle test null and void. Then why are there only 12 apostles in revelation?
Revelation 21:14
"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
Now look at it this way if Matthias was chosen by the apostles who PRAYED TO GOD. Then we must also assume that Matthias was one of the twelve. This means that either Matthias was kicked out of the apostle club or Paul is lying. However their maybe a possible distinction let's argue that Paul replaced thomas just in case I mean it's possible. He doubted the resurrection didn't he? Then why does Paul himself say he was rejected by the churches of Asia.
2 timothy 1:15
"“This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes."
Notice is states all of the churches this includes ephesus since ephesus is in asia. Thus I can come to the conclusion that Paul was indeed talking about the mosaic law due to the reaction to the Ephesians to his doctrine and how they rejected it. Not to mention how Jesus himeself PRAISED THEM for it. Thus Pauls claims to be an apostle is misguided at best deception at worst.

>He's saying that his doctrine is Jesus' doctrine
Let me ask you a simple question. What would you rather read hitler about a book published by a professional historian or his literal autobiography. My interest really is in Luke who was not an apostle but he also never claimed to be.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 10:08:55 [Preview] No.3580 del
>>3579
<<The word for nomon/nomos is law
I concede that I'm wrong that it meant "law", but Paul wasn't referring to the Mosaic Law. Again, you're ignoring the website I linked, and you ignored every single quote I posted on how "nomon" and "nomos" weren't used to refer to the Mosaic Law, by Paul himself. Also Romans 7:12 where he affirms that the Law is holy and just and good.
>In Revelation chapter 2 Jesus praises the church of Ephesus for denying a person who claimed to be an apostle but was not. Obviously the only person who claimed to be an apostle and went to the ephesus church was PAUL.
Jesus literally refers to the apostles in pluralistic form, thus it can't have been just Paul. Thus going by Revelation, there were multiple apostles that went to Ephesus preaching their own doctrines. Paul might as well have not been one of them.
Going into how he was rejected in "Asia" later.
>"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
Paul was AN "apostle", but he wasn't one of THE apostles, there is no doubt about that. Those were the original 12 + 1 since Judas was replaced with Matthias.
>However their maybe a possible distinction let's argue that Paul replaced thomas just in case I mean it's possible
You're even saying that if he was an apostle that he replaced Thomas. Again, this is nonsensical since Thomas was one of the original 12.
>Notice is states all of the churches this includes ephesus since ephesus is in asia.
Perhaps, but even though Ephesus was in Asia, he specifically mentions it in the next verse as where he was helped by God. It makes no sense that he would be rejected in the entirety of Asia, but then talk about his experience in Ephesus positively.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/2_timothy/1.htm
Now, even if we say Paul as an apostle was rejected, this doesn't mean that thus it was the Mosaic Law that he said was abolished. This makes no sense as I already quoted a case for the "nomos" that was abolished not being the Mosaic Law, and also quoted Romans 7:12, where he clearly affirms the Law is holy and just and good (after Jesus's death).
And speaking of Asia, let's talk about one of the other Epistles addressed to the folk of Asia, specifically the Colossians. Colossians 2:16. He says to them not let others judge them in food, drink, or Sabbaths(!), feast days, full moons, etc., again all part of the Mosaic Law. He doesn't tell them that it's all abolished, in-fact on the contrary.
>Let me ask you a simple question. What would you rather read hitler about a book published by a professional historian or his literal autobiography
The Gospels are of course to be held in a higher regard than the Epistles, but I'm not going to reject the majority of information we have on the early church and its doctrines simply because it's not part of the Gospels, or because some people claim that he disavowed the Law (which of course he didn't).
All in all, the entire "Paul was a false apostle" crowd is made up of wolves in sheep's clothing.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 10:10:39 [Preview] No.3581 del
>>3579
So think of Jesus in the perspective of Paul's Epistles as not as any historian talking about Hitler, but as somebody like Goebbels talking about Hitler.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 12:19:03 [Preview] No.3582 del
>>3580
>Paul was AN "apostle" he wasn;t one of THE apostles.
Firstly the definition of an apostle is related specifically to the twelve hence why Jesus distinguished them from the other DISCIPLES.
Luke 6:13
"And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;"
Also nice idea conveniently leaving out the part of acts 1 where it stated specifically what a candidate for an apostle was. I.e to be by Jesus' side from John the Baptist all the way to his returning to heaven. Paul does not fit this criteria thus he is NOT an apostle. No matter how many times Paul repeats it. Note Paul spends quite a couple of passages defending himself as an apostle. Example 1 corinthians 9:1-4
"Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 2If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. 3Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, 4Have we not power to eat and to drink?"
Paul is a false apostle whether you like it or not. This doesn't even mean he was a bad person just that calling himself an apostle alone is dubious. I believe he is a liar but that is because the amount of evidence is huge for instance the contradiction of his story in Acts 9 and Acts 22 and it's the same in greek.

>You're even saying that if he was an apostle he replaced Thomas.
No I made that for the sake of an argument. I never said he replaced Thomas. In fact I would consider such a thing blasphemous. The thing you are misunderstanding is that I was making this as a case for Paul being an apostle which he isn't and that the only possibility of that ever being the case was IF he replaced Thomas which I don't believe since the guy spoken of in acts 1 probably would have gotten Thomas' place over Paul.
>Perhaps, but even though Ephesus was in Asia, he specifically mentions it in the next verse as where he was helped by God.
WRONG the verse states that about a man named Onesiphorus and that he ministered Pauls doctrine at Ephesus when Paul was captive in Rome. It never states anything about Paul praising Ephesus just this man Onesiphorus for preaching his doctrine to the Ephesians.

>Romans 7:12 states the law is holy and Just
Just because Paul writes something doesn't mean he won't contradict it. After all Paul called the law a curse in galatians 3:10-14
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"
This not only goes against the words of James i.e James 2:20
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
He also goes against the words of John who states that the law is not burdensome.
"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."
Remember Jesus said if you loved him keep his commandments.
John 14:15
"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

>>3581
>As someone like Goebbels talking about hitler.
That's not a right analogy either. Paul never met Jesus or heard him preach except in his supposed conversion. Someone like John would fit better with that analogy than Paul does.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 12:46:16 [Preview] No.3583 del
>>3582
>Firstly the definition of an apostle is related specifically to the twelve hence why Jesus distinguished them from the other DISCIPLES.
>"And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;"
Yes, the 12 people of Christ's disciples were named apostles. However, the criteria of an apostle, disciple, and even the criteria that Paul went under are all different.
Since Paul received a revelation from Jesus, he became an "apostle". Not one of the original twelve who were by Jesus's side during his life on earth, but still not the same as the other disciples.
>Also nice idea conveniently leaving out the part of acts 1 where it stated specifically what a candidate for an apostle was. I.e to be by Jesus' side from John the Baptist all the way to his returning to heaven. Paul does not fit this criteria thus he is NOT an apostle. No matter how many times Paul repeats it. Note Paul spends quite a couple of passages defending himself as an apostle. Example 1 corinthians 9:1-4
Again, still a difference between the 12 apostles and Paul's position as an apostle. This is the position that he was in, he never argues to be an apostle like Peter or anybody else. He simply held the title of an apostle.
>No I made that for the sake of an argument. I never said he replaced Thomas. In fact I would consider such a thing blasphemous
Yes, I'm saying that you were saying IF he was an apostle, then he would replace Thomas. However he didn't replace any of the twelve apostles.
>WRONG the verse states that about a man named Onesiphorus and that he ministered Pauls doctrine at Ephesus when Paul was captive in Rome. It never states anything about Paul praising Ephesus just this man Onesiphorus for preaching his doctrine to the Ephesians.
Indeed it does. However I was talking about the next verses, in 2 Timothy 1. He says that during his time in Ephesus, he was helped by the Lord.
>Just because Paul writes something doesn't mean he won't contradict it. After all Paul called the law a curse in galatians 3:10-14
I went over this argument against Pauline Christians who reject the Mosaic Law in my Judaiser general thread on /christianity/.
Essentially, when he says the Law is a "curse", he means that you can't be saved by simply following the Law and avoiding sin on your own, you're saved by faith in Christ's atonement. But this doesn't mean that the Law is bad and is thus not contradictory with Romans 7:12.
>James 2:20
This was addressed to scattered Israelites who were already Christians, that good works were a sign of faith.
>He also goes against the words of John who states that the law is not burdensome.
Because it isn't. I've already gone over what Paul meant by a "curse".
>That's not a right analogy either. Paul never met Jesus or heard him preach except in his supposed conversion. Someone like John would fit better with that analogy than Paul does.
Perhaps, but Paul didn't just meet Jesus on the road to Damascus and then become a Christian and start flailing himself as an apostle. In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul states that he received revelations from Jesus.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 12:51:56 [Preview] No.3584 del
>He simply held the title of an apostle.
And to correct myself here, he didn't simply hold a title. He was an "apostle" but in his own criteria, not like the 12 apostles.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 13:42:30 [Preview] No.3585 del
>>3583
I refer to this post when talking about paul's alledged conversion because he told two different versions. >>3554.
Next I want to actually state that Peter called the people disciples and immediately stated that someone needed to replace Judas.
Acts 1:15
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Notice he calls them disciples rather than apostles. Now I already went over what is required to be an apostle that you had to have been since john the baptist to the resurrection. However it is specifically called an apostleship in acts 1:25
Acts 1:25
"That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."
Thus we can assume that an apostle is a disciple that has specifically had been with Jesus since the time of John the Baptist all the way to the resurrection. In this case if we were to claim that Paul was an apostle we could also make the argument that Ellen G white was an apostle. If we go by "Pauls criteria". So no Paul could not be an apostle at least through the definitions of what acts gives.
Also galatians 2:7-8 states that paul was the "apostle of the gentiles"
"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)".
Did you know that Peter himself stated that he would preach to the gentiles and he would convert them to christianity.
Acts 15:7
"And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."
Also note that this is after Pauls conversion thus we can assume that Peter decided he would preach to the gentiles. So technically it could be argued that the actual apostle to the gentiles was Peter not Paul.

>Yes, i'm saying that you were saying IF he was an apostle, then he would replace Thomas.
Ok to be fair this was a bad idea to begin with. I shouldn't have even attempted to justify Paul's claim to apostleship. I apologize for this.

>Indeed it does. However I was talking about the next verses, in 2 Timothy 1. He says that during his time in Ephesus, he was helped by the Lord.
It doesn't say that at all, in fact. It doesn't even mention he was there at all.
2 Timothy 1:15-18
"15This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 16The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: 17But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. 18The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well."

>when he says the Law is a "curse", he means that you can't be saved by simply following the Law and avoiding sin on your own,
I think have differing interpretations of this entire passage. My way of seeing it is that Paul called the law a curse and that you can be saved just with faith and works are an extra benefit. That is wrong. This is why I brought up James 2:20. I see it as Paul states that faith alone is enough to be saved and that works are bonus points. I see it as faith and works are both required for salvation. In this regard I'd bring up that faith is the seed and that works are the fruits. You cannot get a good tree with corrupt fruits.

>In Galatians 1:11-12 Paul states that he received revelations from Jesus
How do we know he is telling the truth. If it is only Pauls statements I believe they are untrustworthy. Example for the existence of Jesus not only do we have 4 seperate gospels but we also have a large amount of archeological finds. Paul's revelations only have himself as backup.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 14:01:33 [Preview] No.3586 del
>>3585
Then in this case, Paul wouldn't have qualified for "apostleship" in the sense that the other 12 apostles were, but was an "apostle" in again his own certain criteria.
Hence why he was called the "apostle of the gentiles".
>It doesn't say that at all, in fact. It doesn't even mention he was there at all.
<The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well
It does.
>I think have differing interpretations of this entire passage. My way of seeing it is that Paul called the law a curse and that you can be saved just with faith and works are an extra benefit. That is wrong. This is why I brought up James 2:20
And here, I answered it as I did in the Judaiser general. Anti-Law Pauline Christians and pro-Law anti-Pauline Christians (like you) go with the Law as a curse, but in reality it isn't a curse.
Basically, FAITH is what saves you, while works go along with faith. Many Pauline Christians themselves still don't understand this.
>How do we know he is telling the truth. If it is only Pauls statements I believe they are untrustworthy
Since it's a revelation, of course the only men that know about it are Paul and Jesus.
As for Paul's legitimacy, just compare him to the other Christian "teachers" mentioned in Acts (written by Luke) and the early church's historical records. Simon Magus, Nicholas (founder of the Nicolaitans) etc., all were rejected and rebuked yet Paul stayed.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 15:08:04 [Preview] No.3587 del
>>3586
>It does
Ok maybe in english but in the original greek it is written differently.
2 Timothy 1:18
"may grant to him the lord to find mercy from the lord in that day, and for as much as in Ephesus he served better. You know it."
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/2_timothy/1.htm
That's the link you used correct? either way this is slightly different as it states that onesiphorus was preaching in Ephesus and Paul himself wasn't there. The only person who claimed to be an apostle and preached in ephesus that we know of in scripture is Paul.

Also I know this is sort of unrelated. But have you noticed the similarites of Saul from the old testament and Saul from the new testament.
>Both were against a decendant of David. Jesus and well David himself
>Both were from the tribe of Benjamin
>Both were named Saul.
>Saul was replaced by David as king and Paul tried to be an apostle.
Just a little nod.

Also why did James question Paul about trying to get rid of the mosaic law. Wny would James have the need to question Paul if he never preached against the law
Acts 18-24
"18And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. 22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law."
Now if this were the pharisees then I could obviously see where your arguments come from however this is James we are talking about not some random pharisee we don't even know the name of. Now if James questioned Paul then why shouldn't we? Then there is 2 corinthians 3:12-16
"Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away."

>Compare Paul to other teachers in acts
Well the first thing we see him do is support the stoning of stephan. Not exactly a stunning representation of christian morale. However that was before his conversion and we saw earlier that James questioned Paul.

Look I'm looking for the truth and this whole paul thing is one of the largest things that could change how scripture is viewed. Discussing and coming to the conclusion if Paul is a deciever or not. Should be promoted because understanding things ourselves will help us understand more about Jesus.
also I see you don't do that Yeshua/Yahshua thing. I think that is stupid myself tbh


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 15:31:13 [Preview] No.3588 del
>>3587
>That's the link you used correct? either way this is slightly different as it states that onesiphorus was preaching in Ephesus and Paul himself wasn't there. The only person who claimed to be an apostle and preached in ephesus that we know of in scripture is Paul.
Perhaps, but Jesus in Revelation talks of multiple false apostles in Ephesus. Paul is just a single apostle on the other hand.
>Also I know this is sort of unrelated. But have you noticed the similarites of Saul from the old testament and Saul from the new testament.
Why do you think he was named Saul? Because he was from the tribe of Benjamin.
>Also why did James question Paul about trying to get rid of the mosaic law. Wny would James have the need to question Paul if he never preached against the law
James questioned Paul because Paul said that circumcision wasn't necessary for gentiles under the New Covenant. Even Peter came into conflict with Paul about this, and Paul writes about it in Galatians, incident at Antioch. Of course however this doesn't abrogate circumcision as a whole (he circumcised Timothy)
>"Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away."
Again, same thing with Galatians. He isn't saying the Law is abolished, just that Christ atones for the sins/transgressions of the Law that we all inherently have. Not til heaven and earth pass shall one jot pass from the law.
>Well the first thing we see him do is support the stoning of stephan. Not exactly a stunning representation of christian morale. However that was before his conversion and we saw earlier that James questioned Paul.
Also the apostles questioned Paul when he first came to them. But it isn't the same as Simon Magus (a Samaritan convert who taught sorcery and wealth) or Nicholas (whose followers, the Nicolaitans are hated by Jesus himself as said in Revelation). Not much questioning going on with Paul, and he was accepted.
>also I see you don't do that Yeshua/Yahshua thing. I think that is stupid myself tbh
It's common among Hebrew Roots movements, but I don't just to keep to standards, since Jesus's name was always transliterated in foreign languages. He even spoke Latin to Pontius Pilate.
It isn't wrong though that the root word for Jesus is technically Joshua. I've heard a man, a Gnostic claim that Jesus is actually the Greek word for healer, or related to Jason. This is nonsensical since "Jesus" in the Septuagint is actually used to refer to Joshua the man who conquered Canaan.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 17:42:00 [Preview] No.3589 del
>>3588
>But Jesus in Revelation talks of multiple false apostles in Ephesus. Paul is just a single apostle on the other hand.
This doesn't mean that Paul isn't being talked about in revelation. That is like me doing this their are multiple false doctrines in christendom. Catholicism is just a single doctrine on the other hand. That doesn't suddenly make Catholicism not a false doctrine that's ridiculous.
>Why do you think he was named saul?
I'm pretty sure the tribe of Benjamin had more names than "Saul"

>Again same things with galatians
How do you explain "for unto this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done awau in Christ. That is literally smacking your head with a bible saying that moses laws were abolished when Jesus said contrary. You're doing mental gymnastics.

>James questioned Paul because Paul said that circumcision wasn't necessary for gentiles under the New Covenant. Even Peter came into conflict with Paul about this, and Paul writes about it in Galatians, incident at Antioch. Of course however this doesn't abrogate circumcision as a whole (he circumcised Timothy)
Actually funny thing with this. In acts 15 that was talking about circumcision. Peter and James were actually for restricting circumcision. They also say you are saved by grace in christ. However Paul states the opposite numerous times. This led to James confronting him about it in acts 21. Not to mention in acts 15 the attitude towards Paul was different. They were actually rather positive with him. It's only after he begins his ministry that they begin to question him.

Jesus actually mean's God's salvation. Joshua means God is my salvation.


Anonymous 10/11/2019 (Fri) 18:07:09 [Preview] No.3590 del
>>3589
>This doesn't mean that Paul isn't being talked about in revelation. That is like me doing this their are multiple false doctrines in christendom. Catholicism is just a single doctrine on the other hand. That doesn't suddenly make Catholicism not a false doctrine that's ridiculous.
Perhaps, but you can't say for certain it's talking about Paul, since it actually refers to multiple such false apostles. Perhaps Paul was the exception.
>I'm pretty sure the tribe of Benjamin had more names than "Saul"
Of course, but Benjaminites would've prided Saul as a name as it was used for a king of their tribe.
>for unto this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done awau in Christ
Again, the Law is a way God instructed us to live. To avoid sin. Jesus's atonement pays for our sins. This is what Paul is talking about, not that the Law of Moses was abolished.
>mental gymnastics
Justifying the consistency of Romans 7:12 isn't mental gymnastics.
>Actually funny thing with this. In acts 15 that was talking about circumcision. Peter and James were actually for restricting circumcision. They also say you are saved by grace in christ.
Acts 15 was most likely after the Incident at Antioch (otherwise the timeline would be very inconsistent), which is where Paul called out Peter regarding circumcision.
>However Paul states the opposite numerous times. This led to James confronting him about it in acts 21.
Perhaps, however with the Incident at Antioch and the later Epistles Paul's view on circumcision was consistent with Peter's in Acts 15.
>Jesus actually mean's God's salvation. Joshua means God is my salvation.
True, but both are translated the same in Greek. Hence they have to differentiate between Joshua and Jesus, and this carried on to the Vulgate (partially translated from Hebrew), and then to the KJV.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply