Paul the False Apostle

[Pazooka]

Where did Paul get his teachings?

Evidently the same source that the Nephites and Joseph Smith got their teachings.

As evidenced by what fact?

By the fact that they were teaching identical doctrines, ones that were unique to Paul’s letters as far as the New Testament is concerned.

That doesn’t really help, does it?…given that our preconceptions flavor everything. What, specifically, is evidence that their doctrines were identical?

[Pazooka]

A good, honest take, even if you are a Pauline Christian...if you can get past the superhero action figures in the background.

Where did Paul get his doctrine?
Why does Acts contradict the Pauline epistles?
Why do the Pauline epistles contradict themselves?
Paul’s connection with Simon Magus.

Paul is most correct when he is quoting correct scripture.

Edit to add notes from vid:
Suggests that Matthew’s account of Jesus saying “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity...” while afterward making a distinction between hearers of the word and doers. (Matt 7.22-24)

Matthew’s Jesus is previously on record talking about the law not passing away “till all be fulfilled.” And...with his eyes seemingly on Paul adds “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom”.

”Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” ~ Matthew’s Jesus

Whereas Paul, teaching men to look down upon the law, becomes a sort of “son of lawlessness.”

Strange how the Nephites ended up as "Pauline Christian"... lol considering the ocean that separated them

As hard as you try.... you're not going to get that old wine into a new bottle

3 Nephi 15

- all things became new in Jesus - including the Law
- only that law which was given to Moses was fulfilled
- “I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me...shall all be fulfilled”
- “because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come”
”I am the law”
- “I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets.”

The BofM proves that Jesus was not a Pauline Christian

Old things have passed away......

THIS IS THE LAW

19 And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a abroken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the blaw is fulfilled.

20 Therefore acome unto me and be ye saved; for verily I say unto you, that except ye shall keep my bcommandments, which I have commanded you at this time, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21 Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, and it is also written before you, that thou shalt not akill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment of God;

22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is aangry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23 Therefore, aif ye shall come unto me, or shall desire to come unto me, and rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee—

24 Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be areconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full bpurpose of heart, and I will receive you.

25 aAgree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time he shall get thee, and thou shalt be cast into prison.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost senine. And while ye are in prison can ye pay even one asenine? Verily, verily, I say unto you, Nay.

27 Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit aadultery;

28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to alust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart.

29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer anone of these things to enter into your bheart;

30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your across, than that ye should be cast into hell.

31 It hath been written, that whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of adivorcement.

32 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall aput away his wife, saving for the cause of bfornication, causeth her to commit cadultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery.

33 And again it is written, thou shalt not aforswear thyself, but shalt bperform unto the Lord thine coaths;

34 But verily, verily, I say unto you, aswear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;

35 Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool;

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair black or white;

37 But let your acommunication be bYea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever cometh of more than these is evil.

38 And behold, it is written, an aeye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;

39 But I say unto you, that ye shall not aresist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right bcheek, cturn to him the other also;

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, alet him have thy cloak also;

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to ago a mile, go with him twain.

42 aGive to him that asketh thee, and from him that would bborrow of thee turn thou not away.

43 And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy;

44 But behold I say unto you, love your aenemies, bless them that curse you, do bgood to them that hate you, and cpray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise aon the evil and on the good.

46 Therefore those things which were of old time, which were under the law, in me are all afulfilled.

47 aOld things are done away, and all things have become bnew.

48 Therefore I would that ye should be aperfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.
-----------------

Notice how he doesn't include animal sacrifice, circumcision, eating pigs, etc etc etc etc

You just supported the idea that Jesus renewed the law under Himself.

Jesus was the great high priest whose own blood He carried into the Holy of Holies in order to renew and heal all of Creation.

On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would offer the blood in the holy of holies and then would emerge from it to administer judgment.

Jesus fulfilled half of those duties, already. He offered the blood for the holding together of the bonds of the everlasting covenant made first on this earth with Adam.

He has yet to emerge from the Holy of Holies to administer judgement.

He is the law.

Animal sacrifice was not done away with forever - Joseph Smith tried to teach on that...didn’t get very far. It is still part of the law - - just not applicable at the moment.

Circumcision? How much do you know about it?
The eating of the flesh of swine? How much do you know about it?

[Pazooka]

A good, honest take, even if you are a Pauline Christian...if you can get past the superhero action figures in the background.

Where did Paul get his doctrine?
Why does Acts contradict the Pauline epistles?
Why do the Pauline epistles contradict themselves?
Paul’s connection with Simon Magus.

Paul is most correct when he is quoting correct scripture.

Edit to add notes from vid:
Suggests that Matthew’s account of Jesus saying “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity...” while afterward making a distinction between hearers of the word and doers. (Matt 7.22-24)

Matthew’s Jesus is previously on record talking about the law not passing away “till all be fulfilled.” And...with his eyes seemingly on Paul adds “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom”.

”Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” ~ Matthew’s Jesus

Whereas Paul, teaching men to look down upon the law, becomes a sort of “son of lawlessness.”

Robert M. Price

Why do you keep posting the opinions of Antichrist people?

The dude comes to conclusion that it's not even Paul who is coming up with this stuff

He also comes to the conclusion that Jesus isn't real

While you doubt Moroni 8.....yet lean to these clowns.....lol lol lol

“He also comes to the conclusion that Jesus isn’t real”

You looked at the title of one of his videos without seeing what the actual content was.

He is a false prophet...... Which is hilariously ironic that you're quoting him in your attack on Paul as being false lol


16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

I can sympathize with the following review of that book:
Price's "Jesus is dead" won't stay on my bookshelf. His study on Paul will, although I don't always agree with him as can be seen in my "Sorting out Paul. Caught between man and legend."

I think Carl Sagan is pretty awful, as well, but he calls Paul as he sees him.

It seems to be the case, sometimes, that people outside of the paradigm can see insconsistencies more clearly.

[nightlight]

Strange how the Nephites ended up as "Pauline Christian"... lol considering the ocean that separated them

As hard as you try.... you're not going to get that old wine into a new bottle

3 Nephi 15

- all things became new in Jesus - including the Law
- only that law which was given to Moses was fulfilled
- “I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me...shall all be fulfilled”
- “because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come”
”I am the law”
- “I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets.”

The BofM proves that Jesus was not a Pauline Christian

Old things have passed away......

THIS IS THE LAW

19 And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a abroken heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the blaw is fulfilled.

20 Therefore acome unto me and be ye saved; for verily I say unto you, that except ye shall keep my bcommandments, which I have commanded you at this time, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21 Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, and it is also written before you, that thou shalt not akill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment of God;

22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is aangry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23 Therefore, aif ye shall come unto me, or shall desire to come unto me, and rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee—

24 Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be areconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full bpurpose of heart, and I will receive you.

25 aAgree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time he shall get thee, and thou shalt be cast into prison.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost senine. And while ye are in prison can ye pay even one asenine? Verily, verily, I say unto you, Nay.

27 Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit aadultery;

28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to alust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart.

29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer anone of these things to enter into your bheart;

30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your across, than that ye should be cast into hell.

31 It hath been written, that whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of adivorcement.

32 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall aput away his wife, saving for the cause of bfornication, causeth her to commit cadultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery.

33 And again it is written, thou shalt not aforswear thyself, but shalt bperform unto the Lord thine coaths;

34 But verily, verily, I say unto you, aswear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;

35 Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool;

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair black or white;

37 But let your acommunication be bYea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever cometh of more than these is evil.

38 And behold, it is written, an aeye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;

39 But I say unto you, that ye shall not aresist evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right bcheek, cturn to him the other also;

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, alet him have thy cloak also;

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to ago a mile, go with him twain.

42 aGive to him that asketh thee, and from him that would bborrow of thee turn thou not away.

43 And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy;

44 But behold I say unto you, love your aenemies, bless them that curse you, do bgood to them that hate you, and cpray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise aon the evil and on the good.

46 Therefore those things which were of old time, which were under the law, in me are all afulfilled.

47 aOld things are done away, and all things have become bnew.

48 Therefore I would that ye should be aperfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.
-----------------

Notice how he doesn't include animal sacrifice, circumcision, eating pigs, etc etc etc etc

You just supported the idea that Jesus renewed the law under Himself.

Jesus was the great high priest whose own blood He carried into the Holy of Holies in order to renew and heal all of Creation.

On the Day of Atonement, the high priest would offer the blood in the holy of holies and then would emerge from it to administer judgment.

Jesus fulfilled half of those duties, already. He offered the blood for the holding together of the bonds of the everlasting covenant made first on this earth with Adam.

He has yet to emerge from the Holy of Holies to administer judgement.

He is the law.

Animal sacrifice was not done away with forever - Joseph Smith tried to teach on that...didn’t get very far. It is still part of the law - - just not applicable at the moment.

Circumcision? How much do you know about it?
The eating of the flesh of swine? How much do you know about it?

19 And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.
20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.
-------------

Evidently more than you.
That is... if you think animal sacrifice is still part of the law(Joseph Smith was obviously wrong if the quote is actually from him). If you think eating a certain animal makes you unclean. If you think you need to circumcise babies

Jesus explained what the higher law is.... And you just breeze past HIS ACTUAL WORDS. Lol

WHAT DID HE OUTLINE WHEN HE EXPLAINED THE HIGHER LAW????

Did Jesus not explain to Peter that He made all things clean....so eat?

Did Jesus not explain to Mormon that circumcision is done away?

Did Jesus not tell the Nephites that animal sacrifice is done away in Him?

Jesus : Behold, it is written by them of old time,................BUT I SAY UNTO YOU ____

Pazooka : those who say that the things written by them of old are no longer applicable are Pauline Christians

[nightlight]

Robert M. Price

Why do you keep posting the opinions of Antichrist people?

The dude comes to conclusion that it's not even Paul who is coming up with this stuff

He also comes to the conclusion that Jesus isn't real

While you doubt Moroni 8.....yet lean to these clowns.....lol lol lol

“He also comes to the conclusion that Jesus isn’t real”

You looked at the title of one of his videos without seeing what the actual content was.

He is a false prophet...... Which is hilariously ironic that you're quoting him in your attack on Paul as being false lol


16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

I can sympathize with the following review of that book:
Price's "Jesus is dead" won't stay on my bookshelf. His study on Paul will, although I don't always agree with him as can be seen in my "Sorting out Paul. Caught between man and legend."

I think Carl Sagan is pretty awful, as well, but he calls Paul as he sees him.

It seems to be the case, sometimes, that people outside of the paradigm can see insconsistencies more clearly.

Yes.... those who deny Christ have clearer eyes when sifting out false prophets

Lol

[Pazooka]

Jesus explained what the higher law is.... And you just breeze past HIS ACTUAL WORDS. Lol

WHAT DID HE OUTLINE WHEN HE EXPLAINED THE HIGHER LAW????

Jesus did not give the people a higher law. He RESTORED the law to an apostate people. If you read the Old Testament you’ll notice that there was always a call to internalize the law - it is not a NT thing.

Did Jesus not explain to Peter that He made all things clean....so eat?

Is that what that dream of his meant? That it was ok to eat swine? Or was it now ok to preach to the Gentiles who had always been depicted as swine in prophetic teaching?
How did the Atonement change swine’s flesh from unclean to clean?
How were the dietary laws done away with in Christ?

Did Jesus not explain to Mormon that circumcision is done away?

How are we to take this one witness, especially since he was speaking of the baptism of infants? Was this comment inserted? How does baptism of infants have anything whatever to do with circumcision? This is in contradiction to the Book of Jubilees and other sources.

Jesus : Behold, it is written by them of old time,................BUT I SAY UNTO YOU ____

If you look at the Greek, it is actually “You have heard that it was said” - where does the “old time” come from?

Jesus was a restorer and a renewer. He fulfilled some things and has yet to fulfill other things. He is the Law.

[nightlight]

Jesus explained what the higher law is.... And you just breeze past HIS ACTUAL WORDS. Lol

WHAT DID HE OUTLINE WHEN HE EXPLAINED THE HIGHER LAW????

Jesus did not give the people a higher law. He RESTORED the law to an apostate people. If you read the Old Testament you’ll notice that there was always a call to internalize the law - it is not a NT thing.

Did Jesus not explain to Peter that He made all things clean....so eat?

Is that what that dream of his meant? That it was ok to eat swine? Or was it now ok to preach to the Gentiles who had always been depicted as swine in prophetic teaching?
How did the Atonement change swine’s flesh from unclean to clean?
How were the dietary laws done away with in Christ?

Did Jesus not explain to Mormon that circumcision is done away?

How are we to take this one witness, especially since he was speaking of the baptism of infants? Was this comment inserted? How does baptism of infants have anything whatever to do with circumcision? This is in contradiction to the Book of Jubilees and other sources.

Jesus : Behold, it is written by them of old time,................BUT I SAY UNTO YOU ____

If you look at the Greek, it is actually “You have heard that it was said” - where does the “old time” come from?

Jesus was a restorer and a renewer. He fulfilled some things and has yet to fulfill other things. He is the Law.

You keep saying He is the Law....but then you go on to show that you do not know what that means

Does it make me unclean if I eat pork?

[Niemand]

Ethiopian Christians won't touch pork. One or two small churches too.

[FrankOne]

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Dead-Rober ... 1578840007
Robert M. Price
Jesus Is Dead

Description
Product Description
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

From the Inside Flap
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

it's just a rehash of rehash until there is nothing left. In general, Men such as that author are incredibly bias and controlled by their own twisted minds. Laughable.

[nightlight]

[11] Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. [12] Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
....................

"BuT hE wAsNt tAlKiNg aBoUt nOn kOsHeR fOoD"

Lol

[Pazooka]

Jesus explained what the higher law is.... And you just breeze past HIS ACTUAL WORDS. Lol

WHAT DID HE OUTLINE WHEN HE EXPLAINED THE HIGHER LAW????

Jesus did not give the people a higher law. He RESTORED the law to an apostate people. If you read the Old Testament you’ll notice that there was always a call to internalize the law - it is not a NT thing.

Did Jesus not explain to Peter that He made all things clean....so eat?

Is that what that dream of his meant? That it was ok to eat swine? Or was it now ok to preach to the Gentiles who had always been depicted as swine in prophetic teaching?
How did the Atonement change swine’s flesh from unclean to clean?
How were the dietary laws done away with in Christ?

Did Jesus not explain to Mormon that circumcision is done away?

How are we to take this one witness, especially since he was speaking of the baptism of infants? Was this comment inserted? How does baptism of infants have anything whatever to do with circumcision? This is in contradiction to the Book of Jubilees and other sources.

Jesus : Behold, it is written by them of old time,................BUT I SAY UNTO YOU ____

If you look at the Greek, it is actually “You have heard that it was said” - where does the “old time” come from?

Jesus was a restorer and a renewer. He fulfilled some things and has yet to fulfill other things. He is the Law.

You keep saying He is the Law....but then you go on to show that you do not know what that means

Does it make me unclean if I eat pork?

So, then, you would have to demonstrate how my use of Jesus as the Law shows I don’t know what it means.

I honestly don’t understand the why’s and wherefores of pork consumption. The book of Jubilees talks about how the commandment to not eat blood with the meat will never be revoked and how we will return again to break that law in the last days. There are special practices by skilled butchers that were implemented to remove the blood from the meat in order to satisfy that commandment. We are obviously ignorant of these things, as well as the observations of things like new moons.

[Pazooka]

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Dead-Rober ... 1578840007
Robert M. Price
Jesus Is Dead

Description
Product Description
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

From the Inside Flap
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

it's just a rehash of rehash until there is nothing left. In general, Men such as that author are incredibly bias and controlled by their own twisted minds. Laughable.

When you can’t debate the subject, attack the source. We all do it.

No one said this guy was a prophet or a saint. What he is, however, is a perspective outside of this particular mindset quoting early sources with reasoning. You can draw your own conclusions.

[Pazooka]

Something mentioned by the above heathen author, which I had never heard before was the tradition contained in the following:

Epiphanius, who conserves many traditions found in rabbinic literature including the famous "ben Panthera" nickname for Jesus, conserves a tradition about Paul (Pan 30.16.1). In its view Paul was a non-Jew who came up to Jerusalem and converted to Judaism because he wanted to marry the "the priest's" (i.e., the high priest's) daughter (As in Pan 30.16.9, "the priest" is usually used at Qumran and in rabbinic tradition as denotative of the "high priest"). When disappointed in this design, he defected from Judaism and turned against "circumcision" and "the Law." Epiphanius attributes this notice to the Anabathmoi Jacobou ("Ascents of James"), a lost work about the debates of James with the high priests and the Pharisees (also finding refraction in the Pseudoclementine Recognitions) over matters relating to Temple service (including in our view problems bearing on Gentiles or Gentile sacrifice/gifts in the Temple).
~https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

I would like to find the original statement by Epiphanius.

[FrankOne]

Code: Select all

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Dead-Rober ... 1578840007
Robert M. Price
Jesus Is Dead

Description
Product Description
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

From the Inside Flap
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

it's just a rehash of rehash until there is nothing left. In general, Men such as that author are incredibly bias and controlled by their own twisted minds. Laughable.

When you can’t debate the subject, attack the source. We all do it.

No one said this guy was a prophet or a saint. What he is, however, is a perspective outside of this particular mindset quoting early sources with reasoning. You can draw your own conclusions.

i haven't followed this thread, I was only commenting on what I quoted. To arrive at those conclusions is to also come to the conclusion that the NT , the Nag Hammadi scrolls , and many other sources are complete fabrications. I can go with an opinion that they are indeed fabrications and just dismiss all of those written histories. But to engage the subject of Christ at all and then say it's all false is silly. A better conclusion would simply be "it's all a lie" . I could entertain that. As I said, i haven't been following the discussion, so this response may not make any sense in the scheme of things.

if you're saying that I am attacking the 'source', I am not following your assertion. I am only addressing the content of the quote.

[Pazooka]

Something mentioned by the above heathen author, which I had never heard before was the tradition contained in the following:

Epiphanius, who conserves many traditions found in rabbinic literature including the famous "ben Panthera" nickname for Jesus, conserves a tradition about Paul (Pan 30.16.1). In its view Paul was a non-Jew who came up to Jerusalem and converted to Judaism because he wanted to marry the "the priest's" (i.e., the high priest's) daughter (As in Pan 30.16.9, "the priest" is usually used at Qumran and in rabbinic tradition as denotative of the "high priest"). When disappointed in this design, he defected from Judaism and turned against "circumcision" and "the Law." Epiphanius attributes this notice to the Anabathmoi Jacobou ("Ascents of James"), a lost work about the debates of James with the high priests and the Pharisees (also finding refraction in the Pseudoclementine Recognitions) over matters relating to Temple service (including in our view problems bearing on Gentiles or Gentile sacrifice/gifts in the Temple).
~https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

I would like to find the original statement by Epiphanius.

Classic.

“In our view, it is just these Herodian origins where Paul is concerned that explain his very peculiar view of Judaism, what we perceive to be his inferiority complex and defensiveness where Jews are concerned, his jealousy of Jews, in fact his anti-Semitism generally, and finally his extremely lax and, from the Jewish viewpoint, utterly unconscionable view of the Law. It is hard to consider that a native-born Jew, comfortable in his identity, could have indulged in the kind of insults Paul gratuitously makes concerning circumcision, circumcisers, and those keeping dietary regulations, or adopted the curious approach towards the possibility of simultaneously being a Law-keeper to those who keep the Law and a Law-breaker to those who did not in order, as he puts it, "to win, not beat the air," or that by avoiding circumcision, one could avoid the demands of the Law, which in some manner he saw as ‘a curse.’” ~ from the article linked above

[TheDuke]

Interesting that Joseph Smith taught that Paul was an apostle and even did a lesson on what Paul looked like. The questions there arising to whether he saw Paul in a revelation or if he took the description from Apochraphal documents. But, Joseph believed Paul was a true prophetic apostle.

I guess I continually side with Joseph on matters like these.

[Pazooka]

Interesting that Joseph Smith taught that Paul was an apostle and even did a lesson on what Paul looked like. The questions there arising to whether he saw Paul in a revelation or if he took the description from Apochraphal documents. But, Joseph believed Paul was a true prophetic apostle.

I guess I continually side with Joseph on matters like these.

Yeah, but out of faith or ignorance?

You can inform your ignorance, in part, by learning the background behind JS’s description of Paul:

https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-con ... postle.pdf

[TheDuke]

Yeah, but out of faith or ignorance?

You can inform your ignorance, in part, by learning the background behind JS’s description of Paul:

WHAT! inform my ignorance! I read that before. It isn't about what Joseph says about what Paul looks like or whether he got that from revelation or apochrapha, it is about the fact that Joseph taught of Paul, used Paul's scriptures and never once said anything against Paul.

If you want to go down he rabbit hole that Joseph just said stuff because................... then that is you choice and you will need to toss D&C, BoM, PoGP, and all his lectures. Either he was a prophet and the Lord weeded out much, most or all false doctrines when he taught or he was just a man making it up. But to have him teach Paul and about Paul then say he only believed Paul because he read it in his version of the bible when he was young, does NOT cut it. In or out. BTW please don't talk about my ignorance until you have established that I don't know something. IMO you're way, way out there saying Paul and the majority of the NT is anti-Christ teachings and it wasn't caught by JS and those with him in the restoration, like even angel Moroni.

[Pazooka]

If you want to go down he rabbit hole that Joseph just said stuff because................... then that is you choice and you will need to toss D&C, BoM, PoGP, and all his lectures. Either he was a prophet and the Lord weeded out much, most or all false doctrines when he taught or he was just a man making it up. But to have him teach Paul and about Paul then say he only believed Paul because he read it in his version of the bible when he was young, does NOT cut it. In or out. BTW please don't talk about my ignorance until you have established that I don't know something. IMO you're way, way out there saying Paul and the majority of the NT is anti-Christ teachings and it wasn't caught by JS and those with him in the restoration, like even angel Moroni.

If only it were as simple as *all* of the D&C, BofM, PoGP, etc are either 100% true or they’re not. It doesn’t work that way.

I don’t enjoy talking about your ignorance but sometimes duty is just that.

What is the Word? Why does God allow error to creep in among His people? Aren’t we all suppose to be trying to hear His voice? (Deliberately no hashtag). What a great test.

[TheDuke]

I read all the scripture the same. Paul's or JS or Peter's or worse yet Nephi's. I read it. I pray and ponder. If I get nothing, then I move on. It may be there is nothing there for me today but perhaps tomorrow. Mostly that's the case. Then bang, I read something and the spirit enlightens. I'm not a fan of Paul BTW. But his teachings seem as solid as any others, and I have had the spirit on some things, mostly it just doesn't matter to me, personally.

My point here is that if Paul was truly a fake and worse as stated above an "anti-christ". I think I would know it. I think JS would have either said it or at least stayed away from his teachings. I think many other LDS and Christian leaders would object. Oh sure, the the mainstream ones, but a majority of lesser ones. Given, Joseph accepted him and Joseph was in a place to reject him or caution us, I stand by my comment that he was a true prophet/apostle. but, I never said he was perfect, or always correct, or that his writings and letters are fully intact, or the the church didn't sanitize his teachings for their own purposes.

But, i also disagree that we "all" should hear his voice. by all, I mean all of humanity. By voice I mean be able to hear him specifically. Doubt many hear have heard his voice or been in his presence. Few maybe the Holy Ghost, many if not all the Light of Christ. But in the world, most are only seeking telestial in this eternal round and they likely never will hear his voice. Not even sure the Terrestrial candidates will. Jesus himself said "narrow is the way and FEW there be that find it". So, few hear his voice even figuratively out of humanity, in this round. all will eventually (not just at judgement but also in the end of their individual journeys). So, I feel it is improper to judge others for what is best for you. and to confuse what is acceptable or even desirable for LDS or FF folks with the masses. All have access but "few there be.............."

[Pazooka]

...if Paul was truly a fake and worse as stated above an "anti-christ". I think I would know it.

Isn’t that pride?

I think JS would have either said it or at least stayed away from his teachings. I think many other LDS and Christian leaders would object.

I think a great many things will be shouted from the housetops at the conclusion of this all of which you will have been completely unaware.

[TheDuke]

Isn’t that pride?

I suppose to you. But saying Paul is an anti-Christ seems prideful to me as well. I have been pushing back on main stream narratives and questioned about everything. I don't like all of Paul's teachings as captured. but never, even once have I felt his portion of the NT s false and surely not anti-Christ. I have been told one of my very few gifts is "discernment" of spirits. Maybe that is pride also, I didn't say it for myself and it isn't always correct.

Nothing in the scriptures is purely true, not even BoM. Closest we may have are a couple of key sections from D&C but even they have their issues. The way to test the scriptures is lots of prayer, much testing and questioning, then let the spirit dispel truth. At times, I will admit that the spirit appears to confirm principles in larger truths are and in fact, not true. So, we know for example the Adam and Eve story is figurative, the entire creation story is the spiritual creation, yet the spirit confirms the story or principles are true. I can say that will LOL about Eve literally being created from Adam's rib, or Adam having his organs made out of red mud, or Satan really being a physical snake, etc... I can listen to much of Nephi and Jacob talking about their kingdoms, gold, precious metals and fine linens, while realizing their were maybe 60-80 people in a small village that barely struggled to survive in a new world, having to make everything from a start in their middle to old ages (one generation). And then listen to him talk about them having multiple wives.... I mean there is one larger family here with perhaps grandchildren and cousins............. and lets not forget armies (of what 5-15).... Principles are true, but the facts in most scriptures seem presented to exaggerate the setting. IMO, Paul is not different and personally, I've never felt an incling of spirit say Paul is fake. If he is BTW, then it is pretty much ALL fake again IMO and what the spirit wants me to think or accept at this time. But if if floats your boat, toss Paul, read Nemenehah and the sealed book from Brazil

[Pazooka]

Isn’t that pride?

I suppose to you. But saying Paul is an anti-Christ seems prideful to me as well. I have been pushing back on main stream narratives and questioned about everything. I don't like all of Paul's teachings as captured. but never, even once have I felt his portion of the NT s false and surely not anti-Christ. I have been told one of my very few gifts is "discernment" of spirits. Maybe that is pride also, I didn't say it for myself and it isn't always correct.

Nothing in the scriptures is purely true, not even BoM. Closest we may have are a couple of key sections from D&C but even they have their issues. The way to test the scriptures is lots of prayer, much testing and questioning, then let the spirit dispel truth. At times, I will admit that the spirit appears to confirm principles in larger truths are and in fact, not true. So, we know for example the Adam and Eve story is figurative, the entire creation story is the spiritual creation, yet the spirit confirms the story or principles are true. I can say that will LOL about Eve literally being created from Adam's rib, or Adam having his organs made out of red mud, or Satan really being a physical snake, etc... I can listen to much of Nephi and Jacob talking about their kingdoms, gold, precious metals and fine linens, while realizing their were maybe 60-80 people in a small village that barely struggled to survive in a new world, having to make everything from a start in their middle to old ages (one generation). And then listen to him talk about them having multiple wives.... I mean there is one larger family here with perhaps grandchildren and cousins............. and lets not forget armies (of what 5-15).... Principles are true, but the facts in most scriptures seem presented to exaggerate the setting. IMO, Paul is not different and personally, I've never felt an incling of spirit say Paul is fake. If he is BTW, then it is pretty much ALL fake again IMO and what the spirit wants me to think or accept at this time. But if if floats your boat, toss Paul, read Nemenehah and the sealed book from Brazil

Wondering if Paul might have been the “lying spouter” and the “Balaam” that the righteous early Christian teachers described - and a Turkish Herodian imposter used to fashion an apostate Christianity - does not automatically put one in the Nemenehah (sp?) camp.

[John Tavner]

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Dead-Rober ... 1578840007
Robert M. Price
Jesus Is Dead

Description
Product Description
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

From the Inside Flap
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

it's just a rehash of rehash until there is nothing left. In general, Men such as that author are incredibly bias and controlled by their own twisted minds. Laughable.

When you can’t debate the subject, attack the source. We all do it.

No one said this guy was a prophet or a saint. What he is, however, is a perspective outside of this particular mindset quoting early sources with reasoning. You can draw your own conclusions.

Recognizing the source's desire to destroy the very idea of Christ is not "attacking" the source. It is a recognition that in order to destroy the divinity of Christ, that they have to knock down one of the large walls surrounding hte divinity of Christ and they do so through attempting to attack character of Paul - rather than attack his teachings, they seek to attack his character mostly through unfounded rumor and again the pre-supposition that he was deceitful. Most of the people you quote seem to focus on 1) letter Paul wrote, rather than looking at the whole of his letters. If I were to judge you by using only a single letter or e-mail you've written, I'm sure I would come way with some very wrong views.

If I were to say your source was an idiot that would be a logical fallacy, but to recognize that your source again only desires to deny that Christ came in the flesh (the Spirit of the anti-Christ according to John) and they admit it is not a fallacy. It is a necessary fact in order to determine bias of the source. All sources have biases, but I'm guessing you aren't even googling/duck duck going responses to these things because you want so badly for Paul to be a false apostle regardless of how poor the scholarship is of your sources- if you want to know truth, actual truth, look at responses and see all the data, not just one side. It's like me learning about Martin Luther from the Catholic church while he was hammering up his views. Or learning about John Wycliffe. Their whole goal is to "prove" is based on the presupposition that Christ either 1) never existed or 2) wasn't divine and never had any real atonement. So that is why it is so is necessary to undertstand that this person really isn't "quoting outside sources with reasoning" There are books upon books and histories upon histories showing that Christ at the very least was a historical figure. To me it more demonstrates how someone can put blinders on and say they can see in a 360 view. It's like me placing blinders on my horse and getting mad at them when they don't see the bear coming at them from behind. If you were actually searching for truth, you would be looking at more than just anti-christ propoganda thinking you are finding truth when reality your just learning about John Wycliffe from the Catholics during his trial, but hey at least the Catholics are "reasoned.'

[Pazooka]

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Dead-Rober ... 1578840007
Robert M. Price
Jesus Is Dead

Description
Product Description
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

From the Inside Flap
This book argues that (1) not only is there no good reason to think that Jesus ever rose from the dead, (2) there is no good reason to suppose that he ever lived or died at all.

it's just a rehash of rehash until there is nothing left. In general, Men such as that author are incredibly bias and controlled by their own twisted minds. Laughable.

When you can’t debate the subject, attack the source. We all do it.

No one said this guy was a prophet or a saint. What he is, however, is a perspective outside of this particular mindset quoting early sources with reasoning. You can draw your own conclusions.

Recognizing the source's desire to destroy the very idea of Christ is not "attacking" the source. It is a recognition that in order to destroy the divinity of Christ, that they have to knock down one of the large walls surrounding hte divinity of Christ and they do so through attempting to attack character of Paul - rather than attack his teachings, they seek to attack his character mostly through unfounded rumor and again the pre-supposition that he was deceitful. Most of the people you quote seem to focus on 1) letter Paul wrote, rather than looking at the whole of his letters. If I were to judge you by using only a single letter or e-mail you've written, I'm sure I would come way with some very wrong views.

If I were to say your source was an idiot that would be a logical fallacy, but to recognize that your source again only desires to deny that Christ came in the flesh (the Spirit of the anti-Christ according to John) and they admit it is not a fallacy. It is a necessary fact in order to determine bias of the source. All sources have biases, but I'm guessing you aren't even googling/duck duck going responses to these things because you want so badly for Paul to be a false apostle regardless of how poor the scholarship is of your sources- if you want to know truth, actual truth, look at responses and see all the data, not just one side. It's like me learning about Martin Luther from the Catholic church while he was hammering up his views. Or learning about John Wycliffe. Their whole goal is to "prove" is based on the presupposition that Christ either 1) never existed or 2) wasn't divine and never had any real atonement. So that is why it is so is necessary to undertstand that this person really isn't "quoting outside sources with reasoning" There are books upon books and histories upon histories showing that Christ at the very least was a historical figure. To me it more demonstrates how someone can put blinders on and say they can see in a 360 view. It's like me placing blinders on my horse and getting mad at them when they don't see the bear coming at them from behind. If you were actually searching for truth, you would be looking at more than just anti-christ propoganda thinking you are finding truth when reality your just learning about John Wycliffe from the Catholics during his trial, but hey at least the Catholics are "reasoned.'

So Epiphanius, the defender of orthodoxy, is an acceptable source for you? Should I accept you as having a valid opinion, given that you don’t believe the majority of LDS scripture? Why should you have a say in this thread?