Paul Didn't Know Jesus

[idav]

It's more about studying all books of the time (canon or non) and putting all the pieces together to get a clear picture.......like a picture puzzle. The OT is different pieces of a different puzzle, and doesn't fit to complete the clear image the Gospel pieces do by fitting together more perfectly. I have always said "perspective". See it all, before you decide what is and what isn't.

Mark 14:51-52 have many thinking Jesus could have been gay. Google it. And the Secret book of Mark is supposed to be part of what was possibly endorsed, but removed by Clement. Clement said that these words were between Mark 10:34 and 35.

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "Son of David, have mercy on me." But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

To catholic Clement, he says he see's "man laying with man". And rebukes Mark. The catholics destroyed most all non canon books, and tainted the canon ones. We cannot go back much further than 400 AD for most all Christian books.

But when you understand spiritual gnosis, you don't see it as Clement or other catholics did, man with man. That's the physical, the flesh they were blinded by. It didn't matter that the young man was rich, or naked. It was spirit to spirit. The mother of Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit. Yet catholics changed her to he (Aramaic to Latin changed the gender of spirit). They worship a statue (that probably doesn't even truly resemble physical Mary).

IMO, this is the subtle way the Demiurge instills his error into appearing as truth. Those who follow the catholic ideology hate gnosis, and they don't even know why. They just follow a well trodden path. I've studied both views extensively. They haven't. It's like being stoned while watching the move "Reefer Madness".

It's the difference between the book being infallible (good for matters of faith) or inerrant (without error). It is not without error but I am open to it being good for matters of salvation.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why do you continue to misrepresent things while at the same time quoting scripture? This is an election, not a trial!

Also, there have been multiple accusations, definitely more than two, but you'd rather believe in a man who's notorious for his dishonesty under the law and has a track record of stalking teens when he was in his 30's. Aren't you even aware of the fact that most molestations are not done in public? And yet we have a woman who has shown Moore's autograph that he gave to her, plus several women telling her family and friends back then what he did to her. Around 60 of them at last count.

All that you have established is that your politics is far more important to you than any belief about Jesus and God. What a shame. So, unless you have something significant to add, this post of mine ends my part of this conversation, and I hope that you do some serious soul-searching as to where your priorities really are versus where they probably should be. Maybe this Sunday might be a good time to do just that.

Take care.

When a person accuses another person of something, that person has the burden proof, to prove that said person is guilty of the crime Whether they are a Politician or not.
What does Sunday have to do with anything ?

 

[Phantasman]

It's the difference between the book being infallible (good for matters of faith) or inerrant (without error). It is not without error but I am open to it being good for matters of salvation.

I agree. But there is a difference between error and (mis)understanding. People see for Paul to call for women to be silent in church. But he said that to one church, Without knowing what Paul is "responding" to, of what was told him, we mis-take his response. It may have been due to the wailing women did. One verse does not define Pauls message. You need to get the whole picture by the many pieces (of the jigsaw puzzle, as I said). See a pattern, not a single description.

Gnosis teaches this:
But truth brought names into existence in the world for our sakes, because it is not possible to learn it (truth) without these names. Truth is one single thing; it is many things and for our sakes to teach about this one thing in love through many things.-Gospel of Philip

Don't see "Paul said" or John said" or "Moses said". Words can be changed, misinterpreted. It brings on the father of confusion, the reason the orthodox (many) argue among themselves. And even the disciples argued among themselves.

The Gospel of Mary:

1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.


Is this truth? Peter created the patriarch catholic ideology. Paul traveled with female apostle Thecla. But the catholics do not want us to believe it. Open your mind and the Spirit will teach. Close it, and you follow catholic ideology. Seek truth, and you see the "wolves in sheeps clothing". Challenge the sheep, and the wolf emerges.

Know the wolves, by the dung they leave behind, not by their appearance.

 

[Nakosis]

Too many red flags from Paul in my view. Thoughts or objections?

Without Paul, would Christianity exist? Certainly not in it's current form. Paul gave form to the church. Attacking Paul legitimacy as an Apostle attacks the foundation of Christianity.

In asking why Christian are not more "Christ" like, you can blame Paul, IMO.

Here's a question. The Gospels, were they written by followers of Jesus or Paul?

Paul had a vision of Jesus likely brought on because of guilt of his earlier persecution of the followers of Jesus. His entire "Christ" theology is likely something that sprang out of his subconscious mind. He believe the visions, dreams, inspirations came from Jesus, a character created by his subconscious mind. That is likely the only authority he possessed.

It seems obvious that he believed in his authority completely.

To me, without Paul, Jesus seems like a cool Jewish mystic. However what do we really know about Jesus? Especially if Paul's theology had any influence in the writing of the Gospels?

 

[Hawkins]

In 1 Corinthians 5:11 Paul says not even to associate with sinners which is in stark contrast to the Jesus "he without sin cast the first stone" and the Jesus who ate with sinners. Mark 2:13-17.

It's letter to the church. It's not about who the sinners are. It's about how sins are legalized inside the church. This is the same course for today's homosexuality. We stay away from it not because it's a sin, but rather it's an attempt to legalize a known abomination of God inside the church.

 

[Lyndon]

I'm sure most Christians have homosexual friends, they just don't know about it.

 

[idav]

Without Paul, would Christianity exist? Certainly not in it's current form. Paul gave form to the church. Attacking Paul legitimacy as an Apostle attacks the foundation of Christianity.

In asking why Christian are not more "Christ" like, you can blame Paul, IMO.

Here's a question. The Gospels, were they written by followers of Jesus or Paul?

Paul had a vision of Jesus likely brought on because of guilt of his earlier persecution of the followers of Jesus. His entire "Christ" theology is likely something that sprang out of his subconscious mind. He believe the visions, dreams, inspirations came from Jesus, a character created by his subconscious mind. That is likely the only authority he possessed.

It seems obvious that he believed in his authority completely.

To me, without Paul, Jesus seems like a cool Jewish mystic. However what do we really know about Jesus? Especially if Paul's theology had any influence in the writing of the Gospels?

Q source for the gospels is a hypothesis I consider accurate considering the finding and location of the Gospel of Thomas especially considering they contain similar sayings as the synoptic gospels.
The Story Of The Storytellers - More About Q And The Gospel Of Thomas | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

 

[Phantasman]

Q source for the gospels is a hypothesis I consider accurate considering the finding and location of the Gospel of Thomas especially considering they contain similar sayings as the synoptic gospels.
The Story Of The Storytellers - More About Q And The Gospel Of Thomas | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia

You see it while others follow the orthodox ideology. Through gnosis, it is seen like this:

Synoptics and John are the "Acts of Jesus" (the actions of the flesh and words spoken by Spirit)

Thomas is the "sayings gospel" (the words spoken by the Spirit)

Paul is the "revealing of the Spirit" (spoken by flesh)

The book of Acts is the "actions of the Spirit"

I all cases, the Spirit (capital S) is interacting and teaching man.

John says:
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

If the Holy Ghost was not yet given, who were the Jews listening to? And continue to listen to.

Gnosis is the men who understood (the mystery) and continued to write what the Spirit within them was revealing, just like Paul. And the orthodox seek answers from men "claiming" they heard and followed God, when Jesus, many times, said that they didn't.

It's why only Paul uses the term "hidden knowledge" (in canon).

1 Corinth:
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

And the Gospel of Thomas says the same thing:
(108) Jesus said, "He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him."

Sophia=wisdom.

Verse 8 has Paul saying that if the Jews had had it, they would not have crucified Christ. They never had it, as it is revealed by the Spirit in gnosis.

Orthodoxy follows rejecting spiritual gnosis. Pure and simple.

 

[idav]

You see it while others follow the orthodox ideology. Through gnosis, it is seen like this:

Synoptics and John are the "Acts of Jesus" (the actions of the flesh and words spoken by Spirit)

Thomas is the "sayings gospel" (the words spoken by the Spirit)

Paul is the "revealing of the Spirit" (spoken by flesh)

The book of Acts is the "actions of the Spirit"

I all cases, the Spirit (capital S) is interacting and teaching man.

John says:
37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

If the Holy Ghost was not yet given, who were the Jews listening to? And continue to listen to.

Gnosis is the men who understood (the mystery) and continued to write what the Spirit within them was revealing, just like Paul. And the orthodox seek answers from men "claiming" they heard and followed God, when Jesus, many times, said that they didn't.

It's why only Paul uses the term "hidden knowledge"

1 Corinth:
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Sophia=wisdom.

Verse 8 has Paul saying that if the Jews had had it, they would not have crucified Christ. They never had it, as it is revealed by the Spirit in gnosis.

Orthodoxy follows rejecting spiritual gnosis in favor of flesh (seeing the "acts"). Pure and simple.

Well Orthodox believe in gnosis but give all those keys to the father/priest.

 

[Phantasman]

Well Orthodox believe in gnosis but give all those keys to the father/priest.

Exactly.

(39) Jesus said, "The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."- Gospel of Thomas

The church fathers read them and didn't understand them. Called them heresy and tried to destroy them. Same as the Jews who killed the Savior.

Be wise and innocent, as the gnostics were.

 

[metis]

Same as the Jews who killed the Savior.

It was the Romans, and appears to be a charge of what we might call "treason" since crucifixion was only done for largely severe crimes. Also, the Romans couldn't care less about Jewish Law.

 

[Phantasman]

It was the Romans, and appears to be a charge of what we might call "treason" since crucifixion was only done for largely severe crimes. Also, the Romans couldn't care less about Jewish Law.

Pilate found no fault with Jesus. It was the Jews who called for Jesus death. The Romans performed the request of the judging Jews, who chose a barbaric thief over Jesus. Treason and blasphemy are different. One action based, the other verbal.

The Romans sure cared in 66AD.

 

[metis]

Pilate found no fault with Jesus. It was the Jews who called for Jesus death.

All scripture is subjective, and if one actually talks to a Roman historian, they'll tell ya that there simply is no precedent that they know of for that supposed action.

Treason and blasphemy are different.

And there is not a single piece of evidence that has the Romans putting Jesus on trial for blasphemy, especially since they used crucifixion. Jesus said and did some things that the Romans would have judged to be treasonous that would explain why they used that form of death penalty, especially about his talking about his own "kingdom" and also the turning of tables over near the Temple, which was a rather lucrative form of income for the Romans.

The Romans sure cared in 66AD.

As they saw Christianity as undermining the sovereignty of Rome under Nero because of the Christian belief in Jesus' "kingdom". Two other Roman emperors later did much the same to the early church.

 

[Phantasman]

All scripture is subjective, and if one actually talks to a Roman historian, they'll tell ya that there simply is no precedent that they know of for that supposed action.

And there is not a single piece of evidence that has the Romans putting Jesus on trial for blasphemy, especially since they used crucifixion. Jesus said and did some things that the Romans would have judged to be treasonous that would explain why they used that form of death penalty, especially about his talking about his own "kingdom" and also the turning of tables over near the Temple, which was a rather lucrative form of income for the Romans.

As they saw Christianity as undermining the sovereignty of Rome under Nero because of the Christian belief in Jesus' "kingdom". Two other Roman emperors later did much the same to the early church.

Coming from orthodox thought. There were many historic accounts that we chose to accept or deny.

I find the Acts of Pilate to be a more accurate account, than orthodox thought. Jesus answers Pilate when he asks "what is truth". Orhodoxy has Jesus remain silent so the priests can answer it for you.

Pilate says to them: Do you take him, and punish him in whatever way you please. The Jews say to Pilate: we wish that he be crucified. Pilate says: He is not deserving of crucifixion.- Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate

Gospel of Nicodemus: Acts of Pilate (ANF text)

It's all in what the Spirit reveals "to you".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Copying what the real apostles were saying is hardly prophecy.

When I wrote "authentication from OTHER apostles", I was thinking of recognized apostles confirming Paul's words in the NT, and allowing him to speak in the Acts 15 council--and then following his ideas in the same council!