Paul of Tarsus: The Evil Self-Appointed Apostle

My god, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Medicine Woman, argue against and denigrate religion all you want, but please do it from a rational viewpoint backed up by genuine scholarship and evidence. At a distance of 2000 years with absolutely no documentary evidence, there can be no basis whatsoever for claiming that Paul killed James.

Christianity is not what Christ taught, it is, by and large, what Paul taught that Christ taught. There would be no Christianity without Paul. You state that Jesus left the "church" in James' hands. What about Peter? Peter and James wanted the Christian sect to remain exactly that - a sect of Judaism. Their message clearly did not resonate, and doubly so since they did not want non-Jews, and the majority of Jews weren't attracted to it. Paul saw that the Gentiles were the way to go, since to the vast majority of them even monotheism was a new concept.

What do you mean by "researched"? Citing goofy books by looneys? Or actual scholarship by people who can read the Pauline texts in the original Greek?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Silas: My god, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
Silas: Medicine Woman, argue against and denigrate religion all you want, but please do it from a rational viewpoint backed up by genuine scholarship and evidence.
*************
M*W: I have posted bibliographies, citations, archeological evidence and scholarly evidence by biblical scholars. Unfortunately, what I have found is that every few weeks when we get another christian on board, they ask the same questions that we all have already posted over and over. I suggest the newbies go back and read the archived threads before posting, that way, if they don't understand what has already been written, they could address the issue again. The information I have posted has back-up documentation in the archives.
*************
Silas: At a distance of 2000 years with absolutely no documentary evidence, there can be no basis whatsoever for claiming that Paul killed James.
*************
M*W: That has been well documented by several reliable sources. Before presenting your theory, please check out all available resources. We do a lot of repeating on this forum, and we could cover more material if we weren't repeating so muchl
*************
Silas: Christianity is not what Christ taught, it is, by and large, what Paul taught that Christ taught.
*************
M*W: Yes, you are right, but Paul didn't know first-hand what Jesus taught -- however Peter did. Often the teachings of Jesus were coming through Jesus' Beloved Disciple -- MM.
*************
Silas: There would be no Christianity without Paul. You state that Jesus left the "church" in James' hands.
*************
M*W: This is what some circles (even christiains) say. I don't believe for one minute that he left it to Peter. That is what Paul said. I believe Jesus left it to MM, because she continued teaching all the way to Europe.
*************
Silas: What about Peter? Peter and James wanted the Christian sect to remain exactly that - a sect of Judaism. Their message clearly did not resonate, and doubly so since they did not want non-Jews, and the majority of Jews weren't attracted to it. Paul saw that the Gentiles were the way to go, since to the vast majority of them even monotheism was a new concept.
*************
M*W: I will agree with you on that. Peter and Paul went down to Rome. There were oodles of pagans (gentiles) in Rome. They had a field day with the pagans.
*************
Silas: What do you mean by "researched"? Citing goofy books by looneys? Or actual scholarship by people who can read the Pauline texts in the original Greek?
*************
M*W: What do you think? [Hint--check the archives].

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My problem here is that in order for there to be such a person as MM then the gospels must be essentially true. I keep seeing these ideas that the gospels were written later but there is never any evidence or reason given.

Here's the problem. Acts was written by Luke and it changes from past tense to present tense in the middle, kind of like writing a diary up to the present and then keeping it current as they go on their journey. This puts Acts in the late 50's AD. Plus, Luke says at the beginning of Acts that he had already written the gospel of Luke, which puts Luke's Gospel in the late 40's to early 50's. Also, Luke says at the beginning of the gospel of the Gospel of Luke that other gospels had already been written, which puts them in the early to mid 40's AD. There is no way (unless you completely discount the entire NT as total fiction - which also makes MM fiction) that the gospels could have been written after 70AD.

Here's the second problem. Even though we don't have any originals of the NT books, we have many thousands of letters of correspondence between people known to have lived in the first century which contain quotes from both the gospels and the epistles. One must wonder how someone could quote from something which had not yet been written?

Here's the third problem. The gospels were all obviously written by Jewish Christians, yet there is no mention, not even a hint, of what occurred in 66-70AD - the worst catastrophe to ever come upon the Jewish people. I just can't swallow something that blatantly obvious not even being hinted at. The gospels must have been written by their names-sake and in the time frame of prior to 70AD. Nothing else fits (other than total fabrication - which doesn’t fit either).

I'm sorry, but the assertion that the gospels were written later, just doesn't hold water.

I read your links. I don't for a moment want to denigrate MM since Jesus so obviously loved her. I am of the opinion that MM and Mary of Bethany are one and the same, even though there is no direct evidence. One of my very favorite passages is when Mary is sitting at Jesus' feet while Martha tries to take her away. Jesus scolds Martha and lets Mary stay and learn from the Master's lips. MM was probably the woman who anointed Jesus’ head and washed his feet with her tear - although again, I can't prove it. MM was certainly the first to see Jesus after his resurrection, which once again shows Jesus' affection for her.

However, your links are full of mysticism and Egyptian rites, which are not supported by any documentation at all. The arguments seem to come from medieval painters who had no more idea about MM then we do today? You just can’t base reality on legends of the Holy Grail (perhaps you would say the same to me concerning the New Testament – but if I am wrong, then we are certainly wrong together). Scripture does not say that casting out seven demons makes Mary into some kind of purified priestess. If you must take this as symbolic, then the number seven in Hebrew means all, or complete – Jesus got all the demons out. Here is another conundrum. If Jesus is not the Holy One then he could not have purified MM and your fascination about MM is unfounded, but if Jesus is the Holy One, then he had no need of a priestess so there is again no need for MM to be anybody special. Jesus obviously cared for her a great deal, which means I should look on her as someone special, but certainly not as special as Jesus. You cannot be right about MM without the truth of the NT, but my assertion that the NT is true, does not necessarily substantiate your belief in MM.

It doesn't quite work to say that John was MM because of this scripture:

John 19:26
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! ​

MM could not have become Jesus' mother Mary's son. The word translated here for son is specifically masculine. If MM wrote this gospel, she would not have made such an assertion (or error as the case may be). Look also at:

John 20
1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. ​

How could MM be running to the disciple Jesus loved, if she was the disciple Jesus loved? And, what about when they were out fishing in the boat after the Resurrection:

John 21:7
Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. ​

Fishing is certainly not woman's work since it is hard and back breaking (if MM was Mary of Bethany, then she was also rich and had no need to go work in a fishing boat). If she were in a fishing boat then why would Peter be naked (probably in a loin cloth) in the presence of a woman? It just doesn't work for MM to be John.

Nevertheless... If you believe that MM wrote the gospel of John, then believe her testimony in the first chapter:

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. ​

Be consistent. If you believe everything MM wrote and if you believe MM was the beloved disciple and if you believe MM wrote the Gospel of John, then believe the Gospel of John.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you have posted any scholarly citations, I have never seen it and I have truly tried to watch for it. Would you please be kind to those of us who missed it and post again? Or just pointing us to the old post would work just as well.

 

In many ways wouldn't the same hold true for jesus himself? I mean.. god is walking around the middle east curing people, bringing people back from the dead and so on..

And yet his presence on the planet has not been mentioned by anyone other than a couple of his apparent pals, who couldn't even get their stories right, (referring to blatant NT contradictions such as jesus last words/ who was at the ressurrection etc).

No wonder he hasn't come back. god makes a surprise visit to earth and nobody seems to have given a damn.

Would you not argue that the coming of god to earth is without doubt the most significant and important event in the history of the universe? And yet.. such a miraculous event is confined to one small book concerning a small handful of people.

Strange to think that even David Koresh got more publicity.

 

David F.: If you have posted any scholarly citations, I have never seen it and I have truly tried to watch for it. Would you please be kind to those of us who missed it and post again? Or just pointing us to the old post would work just as well.
*************
M*W: David, I found the bibliography that I mentioned. I think most of the are online. It would be very tedious for me to go back and check randomly for citations I may have submitted. If you have specific questions, then I could refer to specific books.

 

*************
M*W: David, I forgot to post the bibliography. Here it is:

The gospels started being written (70AD to the end of the first century AD) after Paul's epistles which were written between 51AD and 57AD. Paul's writings had a great influence over the gospels, but not the gospel of "John." Current thought is that MM wrote under the pseudonym "John." She is also believed to have written Revelations and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene which was suppressed by the RCC. Luke was Paul's good buddy, but they, too, had a falling out AFTER the gospel of Luke was written. Paul had a really hard time winning friends and influencing his peers.

Let me give you a short bibliography:

Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Secret Genealogy of Jesus, by Laurence Gardner

Holy Blood, Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent, et al.

Realm of the Ring Lords, by Laurence Gardner

Genesis of the Grail Kings, by Laurence Gardner

The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, by Margaret Starbird

Key to the Sacred Pattern, by Henry Lincoln

The Tomb of God, by Paul Schellenburger, et al.

Rex Deus, by Marilyn Hopkins, et al.

The Hiram Key, by Christopher Knight, et al.

Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark, by Laurence Gardner

Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs, by Ralph Ellis.

Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, by Timothy Freke, et al.

Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ, by Alvar Ellegard

Mary: The Unauthorized Biography, by Michael Jordan

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, by Jean-Yves LeLoup

The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the True Identity of Christ, by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince

Jesus: The Evidence, by Ian Wilson

Goddess in the Gospels, by Margaret Starbird

 

*************
M*W: David, here are some recent websites to be reviewed. There are many more. Let me know when you've had enough.


http (http://www.joy2meu.com/Jesus.html)
http (http://www.members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html) http (http://www.members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/magdalene.html)

http (http://www.beloveddisciple.org) http (http://www.beloveddisciple.org)

 

MW, these are not scholarly sites - they are loonies rambling on about things they obviously don't understand.

I have to admit though, that I have found that little to none of the "scholarly" work produced in the last century has any relevance to the truth (not just religious scholarly work but science as well) - so perhaps I am not one to judge.

My intent is to discuss, not to convert. I don't want anyone to try to convert me so I try to give that same consideration to others. I am quite willing to discuss (and downright blast silly ideas - like Evolution) but I don't try to push what I consider to be truth since that is something for each person to decide upon for themselves. I'll be happy to answer questions but I try to stop when things get to the point of preaching. Since my field and background are science, I tend to approach religion in the same way I approach science - with lots of skepticism. I readily admit, I can't prove my religious beliefs (which doesn't make them false, just a matter of faith).

It seems to me that your belief in MM and denunciation of Jesus is not scholarly but a matter of faith. If so, then so be it. Faith is a personal matter, it is not for me to demean, no matter how foolish it seems to me. So, while I think you're kind of loony, I admire your dedication to your faith.

 

Am I being ignored?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

David F.: MW, these are not scholarly sites - they are loonies rambling on about things they obviously don't understand.
*************
M*W: Maybe you should check the references. These books involve research which they published. If you could tell me specifically what you are looking for, I could go to specific texts. There's enough research posted on the web, that it's not hard to verify.
*************
David F.: I have to admit though, that I have found that little to none of the "scholarly" work produced in the last century has any relevance to the truth (not just religious scholarly work but science as well) - so perhaps I am not one to judge.

I don't want anyone to try to convert me so I try to give that same consideration to others. I am quite willing to discuss (and downright blast silly ideas - like Evolution) but I don't try to push what I consider to be truth since that is something for each person to decide upon for themselves. I'll be happy to answer questions but I try to stop when things get to the point of preaching. Since my field and background are science, I tend to approach religion in the same way I approach science - with lots of skepticism. I readily admit, I can't prove my religious beliefs (which doesn't make them false, just a matter of faith).
*************
M*W: Those are my sentiments. I, too, am a skeptic, so it takes lot of research to convince me of something contrary to the mainstream. I've done years of it!
*************
David F.: It seems to me that your belief in MM and denunciation of Jesus is not scholarly but a matter of faith. If so, then so be it. Faith is a personal matter, it is not for me to demean, no matter how foolish it seems to me. So, while I think you're kind of loony, I admire your dedication to your faith.
*************
M*W: David, I would much rather you call me "loony" than to tell me I'm not saved and going to hell. Some of the greatest scientists have been called "loony." I've worked with scientists all my life, and it's an inside joke that they're wacky--but they do prove their science!

I especially trust Laurence Gardner. He is well-researched and well-published, and probably started the search for the real MM. Hyam Maccoby wrote the book on Paul. Ahmed Osman wrote the book on Moses. I haven't read all the Gnostic Gospels yet, but I eventually will. Thus far, I am content with what I have read in The Gospel of Mary Magdalene. Because I believe MM is an historical person, I must believe that Jesus existed closely with her. Theirs is a passionate love story, but I don't care for romantic novels, but their's is one of the great love stories. We absolutely CANNOT believe what Paul wrote. Peter betrayed Jesus, yet ended up as the leader of the great christian church! That's too conflicting in my mind. I've been there, I've done the catholic thing, I went to Rome, I bought the postcard and a T-shirt, but I saw Jesus as just a footnote after all the gold in Vatican City reminded me of Paul and Peter. The only faith I have is for the truth. So far, christianity hasn't been, in my eyes, anything like Jesus would have approved of.

Please let me know if you have specific questions, and I can go to the specific references.

 

Her kind grow bolder as the time gets short, even slandering the ones picked by our Father.

Think what they are very soon faced with?
Those cast down losers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

c20H25N3o: "After meeting God, Saul/Paul was transformed and he received the grace that is only available through Jesus Christ"

Paul: Saul/Paul was transformed, but only "to abstain from all appearance of evil". Even though Saul/St.Paul said, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." ( Thess.5:22 ), he himself has come short following the advice of his own Christ to maintain the pretense of Sainthood

One of the greatest attributes a deceiver has is "to abstain from all appearance of evil", as Satan did by coming to Saul as an angel of blinding light, saying, "I am Jesus of Nazareth". By doing this, Satan became Saul's Lord Jesus Christ, who convinced the christian world he was, and is the JESUS that spoke from the FATHER, who was cruified on the cross. HOW CLEVER!!! The abstaining from all appearance of evil is the same as wolves wearing sheeps clothing

The reason that Christians MUST believe it's unthinkable and impossible that Satan came to Saul as an angel of light, saying "I am Jesus
of Nazareth", to deceive the world, is because the consequence of this being TRUE would be so massive that it would bring about a great spiritual earthquake that would crumble all the christian foundations.

Peace be with you, Paul

 

There's nothing wrong with being loony. Yes, those who go out on a limb and look for answers often break the mold - some for better and others for worse.

Christianity is full of false teaching which cause contradictions. Jesus surely did not intend this and would have condemed many of those teachings (Sunday Sabbath, Christmas, etc). Jesus was a Jew and those who follow him should follow in his footsteps - or at least in the ancient Jewish beliefs - which very few Christians today do. You've hit the nail on the head (I have to wonder though since you seem to be rejecting both modern Christianity and the ancient teachings of Jesus, which certainly are not the same things?).

There is no point in preaching at you - you already know all the answers and you have already made your choice. Be firm - God likes it when people are fervent in their beliefs. All these people on this thread have already shown you the truth. You have made your stand and you are willing to be judged by that stand. That is your choice and you have the God-given right to make exactly that choice - and no one here can make it for you. I, for one, will not try to disuade you. Be well.

 

What exactly would crumble if Paul's writings were to go away? I think I could do just as well with the gospels, and the letters from John, James and Peter. It is nice to have Paul's writings but I don't believe them unless they are confirmed by other non-Paul writings. Jesus seemed to be happy with just the OT.

The big cancer in Christianity came after Paul in the form of the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire (the Whore sitting on the back of the Beast). And don't think the Protestants were any better. They are the second beast with two horns (the Episcopals and the Lutherans) - the image of the beast - from which all the modern Protestant Churches come.

 

David F.: There's nothing wrong with being loony. Yes, those who go out on a limb and look for answers often break the mold - some for better and others for worse.
*************
M*W: Well, I do perservere when I research a topic!
*************
David F.: Christianity is full of false teaching which cause contradictions.
*************
M*W: I know this, and that is why I'm searching for the truth.
*************
David F.: Jesus surely did not intend this and would have condemed many of those teachings (Sunday Sabbath, Christmas, etc). Jesus was a Jew and those who follow him should follow in his footsteps - or at least in the ancient Jewish beliefs - which very few Christians today do.
*************
M*W: I've belonged to several Jewish websites which answered all kinds of questions.
*************
David F.: You've hit the nail on the head (I have to wonder though since you seem to be rejecting both modern Christianity and the ancient teachings of Jesus, which certainly are not the same things?).
*************
M*W: I do reject modern christianity, but I do strive to learn about the ancient teachings of Jesus, but NOT through Paul. That's where my disbelief lies. I'm researching beyond that, and I am finding more truths that are not in the NT.
*************
David F.: There is no point in preaching at you - you already know all the answers and you have already made your choice. Be firm - God likes it when people are fervent in their beliefs. All these people on this thread have already shown you the truth. You have made your stand and you are willing to be judged by that stand. That is your choice and you have the God-given right to make exactly that choice - and no one here can make it for you. I, for one, will not try to disuade you. Be well.
*************
M*W: Thanks, David. I don't know all the answers, that's why I'm searching. Yes, I have made my choice, but I am trying to prove a real man named Jesus did, in fact, live and was married to MM. I believe by researching this, I will find the truth, and from what I've learned thus far, I'm on the right track. It's not that I worship MM, but I have great respect for her life and HER teachings. Why would Jesus be with a lesser woman? I firmly believe she knows the truth as do a few others who knew Jesus. This is what I want to read everything I can about. The truth has to be somewhere else besides where the Church says it is.

 

Believe what you will. All I will say is that Paul did not claim to be the Messiah. Had he of done I would have to agree with you.

peace

c20

 

Here we go again... 1 Thess 5:22 in Greek is "Apo' panto's ei'dous poneerou' ape'chesthe" or "From every form of-evil keep-back".

Did the translators get it wrong by saying "Abstain from all appearance of evil"? No, because only a reprobate mind would think Paul was saying "do evil but hide it". Your whole premise quite misguided.

 

Medicine woman, I agree whoe heartedly on your deliberation on Paul being a false Apostle.

Here's one I am not sure that you agree with, but here it is.

But Yahshua said: Mat 16:11 how is it that you don't perceive that I didn't speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."
Mat 16:12 Then they understood that he didn't tell them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Paul said in Acts: I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

You got that straight Paul; I call you into question myself. There is the proof that he is a Pharisee.

Talk about hidden in plain sight.

Yahshua said concerning the Pharisees, Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning;

Paul was a murder from the beginning.
Cain was a murder from the beginning.
Paul is therefore a Canaanite and in Paul's own words, the chief of sinners.

Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Paul came in own name and everybody seems to receive him.
Paul has caused more damage to the faith than any man alive. I don't know if all his writing are lies as there is no evidence that Paul wrote all the epistles. Also if he is an offspring of Satan, he knows good (love) and evil (judgement, self exultation).

Yahshua came to fulfil the law, Paul does away with it.

Joh 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself;
Paul spoke more of himself than he did of Yahshua.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Paul called it his Gospel and anyone who comes against is cursed. Yahshua said this Gospel, not the one to come through Paul.

Luk 10:18 He said to them, "I saw Satan having fallen like lightning from heaven.
Act 9:3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
I think these two verses are synonymous.

Then we see Saul being made blind.
Did Saul see Yahshua?
Yahshua came to give sight to the blind, not to take it away.
Talk about the blind leading the blind.


I think the revealing of the truth is becoming more evident today. I will gleam some things off of his writings but this next verse should seal the deal:

Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Hang on there one minute, stay with me here.
Didn't Paul stay in Ephesus for 2 years and then we see in Revelations Yahshua is commending them for knowing who was a false apostle. Also revelations is written to the churches in Asia. Paul was turned away in Asia.

2Ti 1:15 This you know, that all who are in Asia turned away from me; of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.


Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

You can only can be an Apostle if you have walked with Him, Not because you say you are, Paul.

Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Mar 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

Now have a look at what Paul does to show himself to be an apostle.

2Co 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

But hang on Paul; Yahshua said the signs and wonders was sign that you are false.

 

prophet Christ never said he is the son of God. ( then we are all sons and doughters of God anyway)
and he did not die for anything

where would be Christianity today if Romans and jews did not decide to kill him?
he did not even ask for execution in the first place
first they decided to execute him, then he declerad that he was dying for our sins..
so
what if Romans just put him in prison for life, would he ask for dying for our sins?
and what happens to the people who born and died before prophet Christ?
no logic in this nosense story
best regards