Thread 18073913

I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I just don't understand how Paul -- who was never an apostle during Christ's life, was never called an apostle by any of the 12 apostles -- became a voice, let alone the loudest voice of the new testament. And as a result, I sense many Evangelicals are actually Paulists more-so than they are Christians. Revelations says there are 12 apostles, not 13. Paul is not an apostle.

Paul was an early adopter, but not an apostle. He calls himself an apostle, though no other apostle, nor Jesus in life, calls him so. If any Christian believer has a vision of Jesus Christ -- as Paul did on the road to Damascus -- that should then make it into the New Testament, and ordain them as a teacher to all Christians? And yet when I say to many Evangelicals that I let God and Jesus teach me Himself, they find that un-Christian, heretical, blasphemous and ask how can I be sure I have the right (Holy) spirit. How can they have it both ways -- direct ministry from God to human for Paul, but not for anyone else thereafter?

>>18073913 (OP)
What is it about what Paul said that you jew tards think interferes with your plans? You never elaborate.

>>18073913 (OP)
>seething about Saul of Tarsus, one of the most based former-Pharisees in history
>for one reason and one reason only
sorry about your foreskin moshi.

Simple. He was the world's most successful bible salesmen. He took the Jesus message to the gentiles when it became clear that the Jews weren't particularly interested and apparently even the Jewish followers of Jesus didn't particularly like him very much.

When the movement took off after that, Paul of course got credit for being there at the beginning. He was sanctified in retrospect.

>>18073913 (OP)
What exactly do you mean by “let God and Jesus teach me himself”? Are you just reading the Bible skipping Paul’s letters? Are you just not using a Bible at all and hearing voices in your head? Because if it’s the latter then I see the reason why many Christians you spoke to are concerned you’re being potentially blasphemous and heretical.

When Paul claimed that he was visited by Jesus on the road to Damascus and was an apostle preaching the word of God, he proved he was aligned with God by performing miracles and talking with the original 12 to ensure everything he received conformed with what the 12 learned from Jesus. Without the ability to grant signs via the power of God and the inability to consult the 12 for understanding (since they’re long dead), it’s obvious people are going to be suspicious of what you say.

I’d strongly recommend reading the book of Acts. It’s the book that links the original 12 with Paul and provides much needed context to their relationship with each other in the nascent Church. Acts was written by the same guy that wrote the gospel of Luke, so if you trust Luke then give the book of Acts a read. I think it’ll help clear up some misconceptions you may have about Paul.

paul is just the low hanging fruit for the dumbest most retarded nonsense

>>18073932
>sorry about your foreskin moshi.
Tell that to lil Timmy.

>>18073975
>oy vey not muh Timmeh
Most Timmies are uncircumcised thoughbeit
the abhorrent and barbaric practice is dying off among the younger Evangelicals too, thank God
Paul wrote something about it, care to refresh my memory since you're so learned?

>>18073980
I judge people by their actions, not their words.
And your pharisaic rabbi jew? He's a mohel.
Cope, seethe, etc.

>>18073913 (OP)
Peter called his letters scripture

> 2 Peter 3:15-16 15. and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16. as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

All you have to say to this is
>le FAAAAAAAAAAKE

To which I say cope and IDC you may as well not be Christian if you don't respect the NT canon discerned by the early church. And if you're not Christian your opinion on the scriptures is irrelevant.

>>18073924
Paul taught the Gentiles that God loves them.
I guess it's hard to comprehend the amount of kvetching this causes.

>>18073924
>/our/plan
European excellence.
>the genitally mutilated pharisaic rabbi mohel jew's plan
Globoshlomo, eternal gibs to jerusalem, proto-bolshevism, beta testing atheism, etc.

>>18074144
>European excellence.
murdering all europeans isn't a great plan for creating european excellence

>>18074160
>you're a jew if you don't want to obey my favourite genitally mutilated pharisaic rabbi mohel jew

>>18074012
>scurries back to its tunnel
great job schlomo. You totally convinced someone today. I'll stick to the Word of God, not your pilpul bullshit
I freely denounce the talmud and its lies

>>18073924
Not sure if you're aware of this but Paul was a Jew.

>>18074017
see how I triggered one of them above
they kvetch about what you said but more than anything they kvetch about circumcision and the fact that Paul was a pharisee so they see it as 'treason' (forgetting conveniently that the pharisees were traitors and liars to begin with)

>>18074294
1. Judahite =/= jew. jews are related to Paul like the average Mexican is to Caesar
2. It does not matter to God because Christ came for everyone, even for the Judahites who rejected Him and put Him to death.

>>18073913 (OP)
If you can read the 4 gospels and come to the conclusion they are infallible, inerrant, inspired "Canon" what you may, Paul makes complete sense to read after.

>>18074286
>I judge jews by what they say about themselves
ngmi

>>18074301
>Judahite =/= jew.
Judahite is a made up word. "Ioudaios" is the transliteration of the Greek "Ἰουδαῖος", and the translation of it into modern English is "jew".
The term "Ἰουδαῖος" is used throughout the bible for all instances of the word "jew", from the synagogue of satan to the messiah king of the jews.

>>18074362
my foreskin is still intact thoughbeit
are (you) feeling envious rn? Envy is a mortal sin

>>18074365
uh huh
now explain picrel
and the fact that the babylonian talmud was written in fucking pumbedita

>>18073913 (OP)
Bishops are apostles. Paul knew the 12. They must have confirmed his Holy Orders or gave him them. He is orthodox as they come. Obviously the most voluminous existing/surviving work of a true-Catholic in the 1st century is St. Paul's writing. At least with respect to it being writing that is demonstrative of the Christian mind. Given he adheres to the whole of the deposit of faith, and he knows most all of the existing Church in his day. . . He indeed is a PIVOTAL player.
Catholic to the bone.
We Christians think like St. Paul, and St. Paul thinks like us
We say it's on account of "the mind of Christ."

>>18074365
>The term "Ἰουδαῖος" is used throughout the bible for all instances of the word "jew", from the synagogue of satan to the messiah king of the jews.
The synagogue of satan consists of gentiles who claim they are Jews, but are not. See Revelation 2:9 if you don't believe me.

Likewise the people who claim to be Jews today have nothing to do with the ancient or Biblical Jews. It's actually mistaken to call them Jews, they are really just people who falsely identify as or impersonate Jews.

>>18073913 (OP)
"""Paul""" > Saul > Yosef bar Mathias > Josephus Flavius > Joseph of Arimathea

ifkyk

/thread

*Over 1/2 of "Paul's Letters" are literally fake and ghey. All other writings in his name can be ignored outright, as well.

Acts 9:4 “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

>>18074385
I don't think a single person understands how this post relates to how to translate "Ἰουδαῖος" into English.

>>18074718
>The synagogue of satan consists of gentiles who claim they are Jews, but are not
That's called christian goyim.
>See Revelation 2:9 if you don't believe me.
Do you think that because an anon jew wrote something, that I take it as fact any more than a random 4chan anon?

Then here

https://youtu.be/9V52Gb_IEv8

Watch

>>18074718
>Likewise the people who claim to be Jews today have nothing to do with the ancient or Biblical Jews. It's actually mistaken to call them Jews, they are really just people who falsely identify as or impersonate Jews.
Do you mean like Christian Identity types? or Black Hebrews?

>>18076916
The Talmudists.

>thread number six gorillion brought to you by jews still seething about Paul
Get a job.

>>18074294
Many jews like to namedrop Paul in dinner conversation as a way of looking culturally involved, aware, and sympathetic to Christianity at its roots.

Hating on Paul gives a Jewish podcast guest a good social excuse for not being Christian like all his friends, while granting a vague moral concession to Jesus. They get to say they appreciate his teachings but that most of them were lost or corrupted because of Paul. Now they look like conscientious and progressive objectors instead of stubborn ethnic holdouts.
Jewish people aren't lying to you when they say this, but to themselves really. They want to believe they love Jesus just as much as everyone else, but they need that excuse. All the hate they can't have for Jesus due to the cognitive dissonance that would entail for them as members of a truly judeo-christian melting pot, they put on Paul.

>>18073935
>He took the Jesus message to the gentiles
No he didn’t. Jesus taught adherence to Jewish law, Paul taught that the law was forfeit.

>>18077019
If you hate Paul then you are forced to hate on Luke too, since he wrote Acts.

>>18074441
Mick Jagger knew the Beatles. Therefore, Mick Jagger was one of the Beatles. <----- This is how stupid you are.

>>18077045
Nobody knows who wrote a single thing in the entire bible. Nothing. Not one word. Never.

In fact, there are ZERO FACTS in the entire Bible....NONE!

Go ahead. Name one universally agreed upon fact that has been confirmed by science. Go ahead.

I win.

>>18077256
> “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
> Matthew 7:24-27

Who knew that Jesus, raised by a carpenter, would know how to build a house, and use construction metaphors in his parables? A house built on rock is indeed more stable than a house built on sand when floodwater can wash sandy foundations away.

Architectural and civil engineering says get BTFO

>>18073924
>Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew!!!! JEW!!!!!!
/pol/ with dates

>>18078566
>raised by a carpenter

You lose again ;) Jesus is NEVER referred to as a "carpenter". Only a "tekton"(τέκτων), the root of our modern term "archiTECHT", meaning "builder", "mason", "designer".

This is to say nothing of the fact that there are no fucking trees in Jewhanesberg to begin with. Not even pharaohs had enough wood to go around and the stink dumb Jews burn their own wood reserves at one point and it costs them more than the food. No "poor pauper carpenter" ever existed in history, or the text.

Christ Himself is referred to many times using "masonic" language, such as the "stone that the BUILDERS refused"; "...the headcorner stone"(pyramidion); "Rock of Ages"; dies on "Skull Rock"; buried and emerges from a stone tomb, etc.....etc.....etc.....

Christ Himself is "the Rock". None other.

"""Peter""" was just some dumb, violent, ugly Jew. Jesus was MOCKING him when he mentioned building His Church upon the works of """Peter""", much less """Paul""" both of whom abandoned, denied or never even met Christ Jesus, as is the fate of all Jews, like you.

REPENT! while you still can. You have been warned, or you will burn......its happened before......if the legends are to be believed ;)

Read the antichrist by nietzche

>>18073913 (OP)
paul is canon according to many

Was Paul the guy(s) that put all the pagan symbolism in the mythos?

>>18078976
wait a sec
are you saying the (freemasons) are the real Christians?
that's a hot take, even for /x/

>>18074016
Ok I won't be Christian then. You win. Great evangelism lmao

>>18079828
Nothing of value was lost.

>>18079863
I see them now and then
Still spitting out those lies
Strange it doesn't bother me
I've got my own disguise
And there's really not that much of me
For Jesus left to save
If saving's only bartering
My soul to be his pay

>>18079721
Masons aren't Christian. Christ was a Mason. A "tekton", "builder", "shaper", "artificer", etc....He changes you permanently, like a carved stone. Have you ever "uncarved" a sculpture?

This all ties back to the Hiram Abiff, Temple of Solomon, Egyptians n' sheeeit.

They were the truly "Enlightened" ones who could unironically do maths and logic. "Let none enter who are ignorant of Geometry". These "arts" include Astronom/Astrology that forms the foundation of the Astrotheology of the Bible.

The Bible is crazy, but it isn't stupid. There's "real science" in there, if you know where to look for it.

>>18078976
Bro went completely schizo, damn. I get us being here to begin with is sad, but this is worse.

>mfw bro lies through his teeth

>Jesus is NEVER referred to as a "carpenter". Only a "tekton"(τέκτων), the root of our modern term "archiTECHT", meaning "builder", "mason", "designer".

from the Liddell-Scott-Jones Ancient Greek Lexicon:
> τέκτων, ονος, ὁ (fem. in A. Ag. 1406, E. Med. 409),
> WORKER IN WOOD, CARPENTER, JOINER, τέκτονες ἄνδρες, οἵ οἱ ἐποίησαν θάλαμον καὶ δῶμα καὶ αὐλήν Il. 6.315, cf. Sapph. 91; τέκτονος υἱόν, Ἁρμονίδεω . . ὂς καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τεκτήνατο νῆας ἐΐσας Il. 5.59; νηῶν, δούρων τ., Od. 9.126, 17.384, cf. 19.56, 21.43; [πίτυν] οὔρεσι τέκτονες ἄνδρες ἐξέταμον πελέκεσσι Il. 13.390; τ., ὅς ῥά τε πάσης εὖ εἰδῇ σοφίης 15.411; τ. γὰρ ὢν ἔπρασσες οὐ ξυλουργικά E. Fr. 988, cf. A. Fr. 357, S. Fr. 474, X. Mem. 1.2.37: it is freq. opp. to a smith (χαλκεύς), Pl. Prt. 319d, R. 370d, X. HG 3.4.17; to a mason (λιθολόγος), Th. 6.44, cf. Ar. Av. 1154: freq. in Inscrr., IG 1(2).373.245, etc., and Papyri, PCair.Zen. 27.3 (iii B.C.), etc.:

> This is to say nothing of the fact that there are no fucking trees in Jewhanesberg to begin with.

from Josephus’ Jewish Wars Book 6:1:
> And now the Romans, although they were greatly distressed in getting together their materials, raised their banks in one and twenty days; after they had cut down all the trees that were in the country that adjoined to the city: and that for ninety furlongs round about; as I have already related. And truly the very view itself of the country was a melancholy thing. For those places which were before adorned with trees, and pleasant gardens, were now become a desolate country every way; and its trees were all cut down.

>>18079893
>Christ was
nice try cryptojew
masons are not enlightened dude. They're the opposite of enlightenment

>>18079961
The Jew calls you a "Jew", and cries out in pain!

Oh well, perhaps when the "scales fall from your eyes", you will "have ears to hear"........

>>18079901
> In the New Testament, the word is used to describe both Jesus and his father Joseph, traditionally translated as "carpenter" in English Bibles, though modern scholarship often interprets it more broadly as "craftsman" or "builder-craftsman" due to its general and context-dependent meaning.

"""Josephus""", literally who? We have pharaohs, the Talmud and even Gilgamesh jizzing over (cedar) Trees throughout all of Antiquity.

I win again!

>>18079979
>by their fruits thou shalt know them
I am not joining your sodomite 'lodge' schmueyl

>>18079989
>the devil quotes scripture
LOL

>>18079989
You say you win, but at what cost?

> more misleading waffle on the definition of τέκτων
Do you seriously think a mason or builder in the general sense wouldn’t know how to construct a house? Legitimately retarded take if you think this, even if we grant your argument that τέκτων in this context means a stonemason or general builder. That’s what your primary objection was. Regardless of the term used, your objection is to disprove that claim. Haven’t seen you try.

> “““Josephus”””
If I explain to you who he is you’ll just ignore it or say he never existed or some retarded take like that, so here’s another source you’ll have a hard time refuting.

>picrel
This is a boundary marker made by Roman emperor Hadrian remarking the cedar forests of Lebanon for himself between AD 117-138. Cedars have lifespans of hundreds of years, so cedars in Hadrian’s time would still be growing and of harvesting age in the time of Jesus. Of course, you already acknowledge the existence of trees in Lebanon via the Gilgamesh reference so we’re in agreement there. What you refuse to realize is that wood was a traded commodity in the Roman Near East. Lebanon (part of Roman Syria) and Judea are right next to each other geographically. The trade routes of the time would allow easy access to imported cedar wood there as in most areas of the empire, and wood was used for many commodities aside from house building, like food bowls, utensils, doors, children’s toys, wagons, fishing boats, tents, etc. If you want to delude yourself into thinking the people of Judea built wagons and boats out of stone and valuable metals when they were used by all classes of people rich and poor, then IDK what to tell you man.

And in all of that sidetracking you still couldn’t disprove that Jesus knew how to build a sturdy house.

At least the first time the schizo trolling was funny. Now it’s just answering retarded history questions. Enjoy denial I guess.

>If any Christian believer has a vision of Jesus Christ -- as Paul did on the road to Damascus
It's honestly insane how much thoughtful discussion not only presupposes that this really happened, but that it's the historical background behind the author of several New Testament scriptures. I can't believe I seriously studied Christianity for over two years while never questioning this.
Bible scholars suppose they're leagues ahead of Quran scholars, and in many ways they are, but at least the serious scholars of Islam question the sacred histories of scriptures which appear in history decades after their putative author - who is only coincidentally the subject of all kinds of legends and false attributions. If you are a critical thinker, look into radical criticism before you waste more of your time. Apologists and fogeys (muh Doktorvater told me only the pastorals and Ephesians were pseudepigrapha and the Church could be trusted on the rest! muh bibliography!) will tell you it's tantamount to Jesus mythicism, but no legendary Apostle to the Gentiles(TM) wrote a single New Testament document, and that will come as an almost revelatory truth when you grasp it.

>>18080167
Yeah it's really odd how this episode is just taken for granted. If Paul was divinely chosen as the correct interpreter of Christ then what was even the point of having all these competing versions of Christianity in the early years?

>>18080167
For those who believe that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead according to the Gospels, and that all the stuff described in the Old Testament account is true, the events surrounding Paul in the book of Acts are not particularly difficult to accept in terms of the miracles that are described. But if you reject everything before the book of Acts and Paul's epistles, then you might also find some reason to reject that as well. Although I don't know how you explain how the universe even came into existence in the first place, if that's really your view. It seems like you would have to be skeptical of that as well, if you wanted to be consistent. The only thing you can't consistently do is claim to believe the Gospels but then have a problem with the idea that Jesus appeared, or could have appeared, to Paul like it says in Acts 9.

I can see why hardcore atheists would reject that concept because they reject everything else as well. Or maybe there are intellectually dishonest atheists who don't tell you upfront that they reject the rest of the Bible as well – I can see how they might also pretend to have a problem specifically with Paul but then not say anything about their views on the earlier parts of the Bible.

>>18080272
Why is it inconsistent? Even if you believe in the Gospels you're not under any real obligation to believe that Paul was the one true apostle whose interpretation trumps all others, unless you also believe he was chosen by Christ to be this person -- which would explain why this narrative was invented to begin with.

>>18080281
>Why is it inconsistent?
You mean what I said earlier? You're asking why it's inconsistent to, "claim to believe the Gospels but then have a problem with the idea that Jesus appeared, or could have appeared, to Paul like it says in Acts 9"?

The answer to that is simple. If you believe Jesus Christ died and rose again on the third day – as the Gospel accounts say – then there would be no reason why he couldn't appear as Lord to someone later on, as it says in Acts 9, as well as Revelation chapter 1. Paul didn't write either of those books. You would have to not only reject the epistles of Paul, but also at a minimum the book of Acts as well. It was written by one of the Gospel writers. The book of Acts is where the description of Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus is given. It would be inconsistent to say that Luke was a valid account and witness of first century events in the Gospel of Luke, but not in his account in the Acts of the Apostles which he also wrote. That would be an arbitrary rejection. There is nothing in Luke's Acts account that contradicts Luke's Gospel account.

>you're not under any real obligation to believe that Paul was the one true apostle whose interpretation trumps all others,
I have never seen the term "one true apostle" in the Bible. Are you being dumb on purpose in this statement?

>Even if you believe in the Gospels
Well, Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke as well as Acts. So if you believe in what Luke wrote in the Gospel of Luke, then Acts follows.
>which would explain why this narrative was invented to begin with.
I don't see why Luke would freely admit that Paul started out as a pharisaical zealot who persecuted Christians, unless it was true. That doesn't seem to be something that somebody would choose to make up if it didn't really happen. There is no reason why Luke would specifically attribute that origin to Paul under that hypothesis, Luke would only say it if he was being truthful, and it actually happened.

>>18080143
I REALLY got your foreskin in a twist, didn't I? LOL! Jk we both know you don't have a foreskin, but my point still stands, I wrecked you so bad you had to quadruple REEE just to try to disprove the facts of my case.

I win again!

>>18080331
>still thinks there are “ZERO” facts in the Bible
>still hasn’t disproven the simple fact Jesus knew how to build a sturdy house
>no more incoherent schizo attempts at “““rebuttal”””
Cope harder.

>>18080354
>OK, name one fact in the Bible
>I don't have to disprove anything. Burden of proof always and only falls to the claimant.
>there is no rebuttal to a non-argument.
>The Bible is fake and ghey. The Jews are fake and ghet. You are a Jew. You are fake and ghey.

I win