Paul Contra Jesus

Ahh... everytime I called a "modern Christian" a Paulist, and they stared back with a blank empty stare.

"Wait, this isn't Jesus' word? Oh well, I will still fanaticaly follow it!"

 

They stare at you blankly for a good reason - your little skit on this whole thing is really really gay.

"Modern Christian"
Idiot.

 

Being so offensive, and to a moderator... tsk tsk tsk...

Would you prefer "ancient christian"? Modern chirstian is just a term widely used in Central America to describe a Christian from today.

Please refrain from such comments, and pointless insults such as "really really gay" in the future.

 

Actually Paul didn't say anything that God didn't inspire him to write, and Jesus is God. I'm a liberal though, don't get me wrong. I don't actually obey those rules.

 

God inspired him to say those, thus it is god's will.

You "choose" not to obey GOD'S will?


It's always pick and choose isn't it. Its like you people are only christian when you go to church or when it doesn't require you to go out of your way.

 

Truth is lost amongst NT and apologist contortions ~
Saul ~ Roman spy, christian persecutor, murderer.
Saul ~ Employed by Rome to to destabilize fractious movements.
Saul ~ Fraudulently re-states christ teachings post crucifixion to apostles.
Saul ~ Vehemently opposed by apostolic disciples of supposed "jesus."
Saul ~ Escorted safely out of Jerusalem under protection of two Roman legions to Rome.
Saul ~ Continues subversive activities by writing to Eastern agents from within the Roman protectorate.
Constantine ~ adopts the Romanized version of christ fraudulently written by Saul. Condemns all esle as heretical.
Constantine ~ Established Holy Roman Church in law, which ultimately asserts authority under pain of death and torture (the Roman way).
Holy Roman Church ~ Rules the world using Saul's New Testament distortion.
Protestantism ~ breaks from Holy Roman Church to ensure King of England is not subserviant to Roman Pope (Emperor) in protest of Roman Church's claim of authority absolute.
Protestantism ~ Continues Roman Church 'tradition' of persecution, torture, destruction of "heresy". Forbids literacy, thereby assuming control of Regal, common law, & governmental process.
Protestantism ~ Fractures into schisms due to inconsistencies in doctrine established by Saul, becomes generic 'Christianity' marketed under many and various names reflecting preferred schism.
= christianity today.
Truth hurts.
Know the truth and the truth will set you free.

 

Nice try Mr.Ree and I give you credit for putting alot of effort into your shitty revisionism so that it has all the appearances of something articulate, with time stamps and categories etc.
Problem is that it flies in the face of obvious reality.
Christianity spread with astonishing response. To this day its cracking hot goodness around the world.

This entire 'Divide and Conquer' crap you and SirRubin are stupidly (but sleazily) trying to pull on less-informed individuals is just not workable.

But hey.. by all means - dont anyone take my word for it.
Instead, go and start reading Pauline Epistles in the NT.
Over and over and over again - Paul points you back to the life of Christ, back to the Ministry of Christ, back to the Cross, back to the Brethern, back to the Gospels.. over and over.

Oops.. I guess you never really counted on anyone actually investigating when you came up with this trick eh?
Sadly.. too many people WILL take your fake word for it without actually checking for themselves.

SirRubin.. Your little word-play gimmick not just gay - its supergay.
Dont blame the messenger.

 

erasmus...you're not a very happy person are you?

 

Im pretty happy, yes.
Im not happy about scam artists who are no longer interested in 'what IS true' but instead build up lies and tricks in order to further their own antichristian emotional/pride issues. (See SirRubin or Mystery)
Its called having compassion. Obviously, the stupid 'Divide and Conquer' gimmick being played with Paul is based on nothing.
I know that and so do they.
However... its designed to keep half-informed and unwitting people like you from finding knowing whats real and what is crap.

So thats where I come along and ruin their shit by asking you to go and find out if there has been any historical schisms over Paul.
If there are not other Gospels and Apostles agreeing with him at the same time.
If Paul does not repeatedly point his readers to Jesus and his words and actions over and over.

Then that makes me happy because I know that the truth is discovered, your made aware of bullshit the next time you see it ...
.. and as a bonus to me - those two get their shit totally fucked up by me and exposed as scam artists.

Believe me.. SirRubin is just itching to censor me as we speak.
You can almost bet he is at least considering passing it over to Darrel (and hence wash his hands of it).
How much you want to bet Im right about that too?

 

Erasmus, the first three centuries of christianities existence was nothing if not a schism between Pauline Christians and everybody else.

Pauline Christianity won out with the establishment of the Catholic church and from then on any attempt at a schism would have been (and was) branded heresay, isolated, shortlived, and fatal.

Which apostles would those be?

The only gospel that preaches the divinty of Jesus, which was Paul's central point, is John.

We know Peter never accepted the apostleship of Paul and Peter's epistle is pretty obviosly contra-pauline.

The epistle of James is as anti-Pauline as you can get.

If you throw Thomas into the mix that's 3 against, one weak "maybe" from John, and 8 "no comment"s (in that we don't have the writtings of any of the other apostles).

Paul never quotes Jesus or refers to any of Jesus' sayings in any of his epistles.
Not once.

 

Total nonsense. Its as if you have just made this up for no other reason than to create a false sense there is a choice to be made and the New Testament to be broken.
Its great for you to make up things but its not real or based on real historical understandings.

Total Nonsense again.
'Pauls Christianity' is not something 'as opposed to' some other kind of Christianity.
Pauls Epistles are already accepted by Churches across the (then) world.
Catholic Church does not make Pauls Ministry and place 'valid' or 'not valid' and this sound like more insane Nicene Mafia Conspiracy fiction again.

Total nonsense about the 'Catholic Church' killing and persecuting anyone who did not go along with them.
Total nonsense.. they could not have done that even IF they were satanic and evil as you suppose.


Which apostles would those be?

So he now agrees with John. He agrees with all four Gospels and all record the claim to Divinity that Jesus himself makes - not John or Paul.
Its a scam in itself that you are pretending like its 'controversial' in the first place.
Never mind pretending its not abundantly evident in all four Gospels - the Pharisees and Sanhedrin sure as heck knew what Jesus was claiming.

Total Bullshit coming out of your mouth.
The fact they exchange this way is all the evidence one could ask for demonstrating Paul is accepted by the Apostles.
Otherwise - just a sheer scam and 'deception' for you to say that only in hopes other readers wont go check it out for themselves and find out you are a bullshitter on that one.

See Above: You bullshit.

Since he was already aware of the Gospels there is not only no need to do this but he wonderfully spends his time transitioning people from 'what happened' to what it means in their daily lives.
Superbly too.. over and over and over pointing to Jesus and his Ministry (exactly as described in the Gospels).

Seriously.. I know this is fun for you guys to 'make arguments' that are the 'most effective' as possible for your antichristian views and all... but its lame to sit around pretending like you are onto something.
Your not.
I surely was not the brightest seminary student or the most attentive in history class but its really really clear you are making up bullshit in some attempt (which you dont even believe) to cause a fake 'divide' and consequent 'conquer' among would-be seekers.

 

1. Try countering the historical facts provided with something other than rhetorical drivel.
2. Show a christian historical record contrary to that provided!
3. Then you might be taken seriously instead of simply being an idiotic clown.

 

Try providing some historical facts in the first place and not contrived revisionism.

Ok, see the History of the Christian Church since the time of Christ.
How about Acts.
Maybe a History Class.. and even a liberal Uni would be more enlightening.

I am taken seriously. Your bullshit 'Pauline Christianity' you ripped off from Muslim Apologists and keep trying to redo as some sort of 'informed historical controversy' is the only idiotic clowning going on here.

Like I said - anyone wants to put this to the test, feel free to read through the New Testament and tell me you see any sort of problem between Paul and anyone else INCL James.
Nonsense.

There is no more 'burden of proof' on me to show you why Paul is Canon anymore than you need to be refuting my claim that New York State is not actually part of the USA and there is 'New York Citizens' as opposed to 'American Citizens'.
Or any such bullshit I could make up just like you are with 'Pauline Christianity' and demanding some evidence to the contrary.

 

Erasmus... how can I possibly take you seriously when all you do is directly flame?

You are extremely weak at arguments, I would suggest more practice.

 

Well, not anymore anyway. Not since all the other sects were wiped out (or driven underground) and their writtings all but destroyed.

Only if you focus on the orthodox church and ignore the existence of every other sect (which, apparently, is exactly what you'r doing).

WOW! Your'e denying the extermination of the Cathers? The Albigensian crusade?
the persecution of the Waldenses? the pogoms against the european Jews? the Inquisitions? the witch trials?

How do you feel about the Holocoust?

Only by the loosest and most insane interpretation.

Jesus was executed for insurection, not heresay. He was condemed for claiming to be "King of the Jews". Never once at his trial did anyone accuse him of claiming to be God.

Are you under the impression that the epistles of the apostles are addressed to each other? Better go back and read them again.

Funny. the whole reason I responded to your post was so anyone looking would have two conflicting accounts and therefore have to go check it out for themselves.

Calling something "bullshit" over and over doesn't make it so, anymore than saying "In Jesus name" at the end of a lie makes it the truth.

Even in the unlikely event that this is true you're still contradicting yourself.

Now you're just propagandising (you can't prove me wrong so you have to depict me as "evil").

The bottom line is I would never expect, want, or hope that anyone would take what I have to say as the last word on any of this.

On the other hand if I can do or say anything to make it less likely that anyone would take your word as the last word, I figure I did my part.

 

Ohhhh please take me seriously... Im really trying to answer to you and win your approval on this topic..

Maybe I can master your 'Stop now' techniques later one.

---

Of couse it was.
How about this.. the 'other sects' were carrying on just fine. Actualy one of the reasons (just one of them) we know this is because of things like the Nicene Council which was convened for the very reason of discussing what indeed was the real deal and what was nonsense.
In those Councils they go on and on about splinter groups and other Sects, including discussing at great length what they believe and teach and why its not acceptable.. and Im just throwing Arians out there as an example.
In many cases, the only reason you know about these other Sects is because of the writings of the orthodox and organised Christians who came together to confirm their unity and agree on what they agree on.

Butttttt.... what is really fascinating about these conspiracy theories is the downright dilema you people want to put yourselves in.
You ask people to believe two things:
- Its obvious and evident that the Canon has contradictions and serious flaw including 'Obvious contradictions' between even Authors themselves.
and
- You insist that an evil Council deliberately manipulated the texts to suit themselves (even killing off anyone who knew too much and then destroying all evidence.

wtf?

What kind of Mafia can pull off the crime of the Millenium and take over the world but somehow just 'forgot' to fix up all these other so-called 'obvious contradictions'.

Stupid theory.

 

I have provided historical fact. Where is your historcally factual counter???? Prove this purpoted "revisionism" ~ I dare you!!
History will not change because of your myopic ignorance!
There is not one NT book that is historically accurate, authentic, or substantiated. Even Christian scholars admit to that. But you couldn't see reality if it was in front of your face, given your facial & intellectual orientation ~

The Holy Roman Catholic Church ~ the church that composed every word of every book of the NT that is read in every christian church.
http://www.joshuabooks.com/bushby/biblefraud/internalgif/whattheysay.htm

 

Wow, you're playin' hard ball, hard ball I'm telling you. I think you both need some mdma.

 

Sorry Erasmus, but, aside from the fact that your last post reads like a comicbook, I'll put it this way;
you won't answer my questions? Niether will I answer yours (that's a paraphrase from a book I suggest you read sometime).

On the other hand if anyone else wants to know why erasmus's conspiracy theory is bunk, feel free to ask.

So basically Erasmus, what you've said so far;

• The Ebonites, Machianites, Nazzerrenes, the Cathers and Gnostics never existed.
• All historians, including St. Irenious, St. Jerome, St. Esubius, and St. Augustine were liars.
• The Inquistions never happened, nor did the persucution of the Waldeans, the Jewish pogoms, the witch trials, the Albigensian crusade, the extermination of the Cathers or the burning of any number of random hereitics and free thinkers. These were all just nasty rumors spread to undermine christianity.
• The Gnostic texts found at Nag hammadi were all forgeries
• The epistles were letters the apostles wrote to each other. They were pen pals.
• Christianity has been one cohesive entity with one theology (Pauls) from it's insception.
• Not only aren't any of the facts and theories I presented in my previous posts true but I personally made most of them up myself (which would make me something like 2000 yrs old).

where do I start?

 

No. You asserted conspiracy theories which, like all conspiracy theories, asks for far more leaps, bounds, assumptions and guessing (all of which conveniently is 'hidden somewhere).

For no good reason you just assert that Paul was unwelcome or at some odds with Jesus and some, if not all of the Apostles.
Funny?
Dont find any historical evidence of this other than you simply 'saying so' and then asking us to believe all the evidence was 'erased' by some Mafia led by Constantine.

To sum up - what you HAVE given me is a sneaky piece of crap designed to cause a 'divide and conquer' by making a false dichotemy between so-called 'Pauline Christianity' (Evil Constantine Mafia Version of course) and 'Real Christianity - which in your case you mean 'Gnosticism'.

Would it be fair to say your 'Historical Facts' are from DAN FUCKING BROWNS 'DAVINCI CODE'?

Yep.. I thought so.
Idiotic.

Ok.
You made it up.
Proven.

Seriously though - Dont even try and pretend this is some valid historical debate in which there are 'two sides here'.
Your made up fake, 'Davinci Code' conspiracy is not invited into the serious and realistic historical debates anymore than its 'up to debate' who is the real WBC Heavyweight Champ - Eminem or Klitscho.

Just going through the most basic historical facts that even the most 'liberal' or 'conservative' historians agree are most certainly even the harshest REAL critics would agree must be true beyond any reasonable doubt:
- Jesus most certainly did live (divinity aside) as described in the Gospels.
- His Disciples most certainly did write those Gospel accounts.
- Paul is most definately known and interacts with them.
- CHRISTIANITY IS WIDESPREAD AND IN FACT ROCKING THE FACE OFF THE WORLD LONGGGGGGG BEFORE CONSTANTINE IS BORN.
- Pauls Epistles ARE ALREADY WIDELY ACCEPTED ALONG WITH JAMES AND JOHNS GOSPEL AND IN FACT ALL THE BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT NOW YOU DOORKNOB..

How in the freaking world do you think there WAS A NICENE COUNCIL to meet and AGREE ON THE BOOKS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Now a lot of this comes down to your stupid Constantine Theory. Well Surprise but Constantine made the GRAND CONTRIBUTION of inviting everyone INCLUDING 'SECTS' and then making his big opening statement.
300 Bishops and Leaders FROM ALL OVER THE EMPIRE show up and what do they debate?
Only someone so ignorant of Christian Theology thinks they are deciding 'If Jesus is Divine'.
NO!
They are literally debating an 'Iota' and in fact its ALREADY WELL ACCEPTED that Jesus is Divine.
The ONLY real debate is about the 'Nature of Christs Divinity' and over words like 'Same' or Similar'.
No exaggeration.. there is literally an 'Iota' being debated about.
Same - Similar?

Talk talk talk...

Your welcome to make stupid statements based on your own 'feeling' or 'conspiracy theory but then this begs the question - why are you then deeming them authoritative whenever it suits you (example: pointing out some disagreement between Paul and James).
I mean.. why are you using these books as evidence and then turning around and saying your evidence is inaccurate, inauthentic and unsubstantiated.

I guess you want it both ways and selectively.

No 'they' dont.
Some shitty scholar probably told someone that and you believed him.
Im not even sure what you mean by 'Christian Scholars' since these people you cite seem to reject the entire NT.

Reality is not 'George Bush and the CIA blew up the WTC on 911 and you cant give objective scientific proof otherwise + any evidence to the contrary is of course.. fake evidence left by Dick Cheney ... errrr except the evidence which fits my conspiracy theory.. because that is real evidence Cheney forgot to clean up.

Seriously.. that is actually a BETTER theory then your 'Paul and Evil Constantine' bullshit.

First of all.. just to give you an example of how F'ed up you are on 'Historical Facts' - you start by mistaking the Nicene Council as 'The Holy Roman Catholic Church' when its not even named anything like this at all.
You could call it the 'catholic church at large throughout the Roman Empire which is not exactly considered 'Holy' and especially if you asked Christians Im sure'.

Then you again come up with the most retarded and baseless accusation that 'they composed'... ewwwww.. now they 'composed every word'.
Wow!
Funny how you keep citing those composed words as evidence for your crackpot theory that James or Paul or Jesus said anything at all.
How would you know?
According to you James, John or Jesus Accounts were not even made up until Nicene.
Stupid.

Hey.. here is another book you can put beside your 'Bible Fraud' and 'Davinci Code' books:


I think the David Icke book is a helluva lot more believable and includes 'Reptile Men' too.
More exciting than your Evil 300 Bishop Mafia that somehow managed TO KILL EVERY CHRISTIAN AND REMAINING EVIDENCE 300+ YEARS AFTER IT HAD ESTABLISHED ITSELF.
WOw.. Constantine EVEN GOES OUTSIDE THE EMPIRE TO DESTROY AND THEN 'PLANT' EVIDENCE FOR 20Th CENTURY HISTORIANS TO DIG UP!!!
Stupid.