because you were spreading falsehoods about Paul who is a brother in Christ
Really? name one thing I said that is a falsehood or a lie?
Maybe because I have doubts about the existence of a historical Paul. But, what if my doubts are founded? Who was Paul and where did he come from? We actually know very little about the early life of Paul, which itself is suspicious for someone
so important. What we do know is that he's from a place called Tarsus, which is part of the Jewish diaspora in what is now modern Turkey. He himself was Jewish by ancestry. But crucially, he was a Roman citizen. And this is extremely rare for a Jewish person. You could only become a Roman citizen in three ways. First, you could be born to citizen parents, which is probably Paul's situation. He tells us in the Bible, I was born a Roman citizen. Therefore, my parents were citizens. This means his family was very wealthy and part of the Roman elite. Second, you could earn citizenship by serving in the Roman military for 20 years. Third, you could be granted citizenship by the emperor as a reward for exceptional service to the state. So, it's very hard to be a Roman citizen. Only a small percentage of people in empire had citizenship. But Paul was a citizen which gave him enormous privileges. He could appeal directly to the emperor. Local authorities had to treat him with respect.
Paul converted and became a Pharisee. Now, Pharisees were Jewish religious teachers who would eventually evolve into rabbis. And as a Pharisee, Paul was apparently very fanatical. We know that converts often become more extreme than people born into a tradition. And as a Pharisee, Paul was supposedly tasked with destroying the Jesus movement because it was heresy. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but according to the Pharisees, he wasn't. Therefore, his followers were spreading false teachings. But wait, this makes no sense. After Jesus death James the Just and the followers of Jesus were in Jerusalem and they were being protected and honored by the Pharisees. So why would the Pharisees send Paul to destroy the movement they were protecting in their own city? This is a major contradiction that no one has adequately explained, in my opinion. And I'm allowed to have my own opinion, is that right?
I'm saying Paul was changed from the pharisee known as Saul, that is the power of Jesus. The other apostles were suspicious too and that got sorted.
How do we even know Robert Frost wrote that poem? We weren't there..
(There are processes in place)
You can have all the opinions you'd like but when you display them as fact you take it to a different level where I'm able to do the same because I trust the Lord in what He says and wrote as absolute Truth.
when you display them as fact you take it to a different level
I just replied to someone else who apparently knows you, SwampRangers. I'm just going to copy & paste my reply here. maybe you understand better by reservations when it comes to Paul.
IMO, there are many contradictions in the Bible when it comes to Paul... if you read carefully. To me Paul is nothing more than an intelligence asset working on behalf of Roman imperial interests to neutralize the most dangerous threat the empire had ever faced, Jewish fanaticism.
Let me give you an example, Paul decides to go to Damascus to destroy the Jesus movement there. But on the road to Damascus, something extraordinary happens. He sees a blinding light. He hears the voice of Jesus saying, "Paul, Paul, why are you persecuting me and my people?" And at this moment, Paul has what we now call a Damascus moment, a sudden conversion, a complete reversal of belief. And Paul at this point becomes a fanatical follower of Jesus, even though he never met Jesus in life and never met any of Jesus's original disciples. This is extremely weird, but he becomes convinced that he understands Jesus's message better than anyone. And he decides he's going to spread this message to everyone throughout the Roman Empire. So what does Paul do? He starts going to synagogues around the empire telling Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. And he begins to build the structure and organization that will become Christianity. Now, at this point, they're not called Christians. They're still Jews. And the Jesus movement is considered a branch of Judaism. But Paul introduces several radical innovations. None of it makes any sense to me.
The first major innovation is Paul's teaching that Jesus is the Messiah and that through faith in Jesus, you will achieve salvation. This is very different from what Jesus himself taught. Jesus taught that it's through good works, through compassion, through love, through helping others that you achieve spiritual liberation. But Paul teaches good works don't matter. What matters is belief. Faith in Jesus as savior. If you believe, then you are saved. If you don't believe, then you are damned. No matter how good a person you are. Think about how radical this shift is. Jesus taught that everyone has the divine spark within them and through right action through cultivating that spark you achieve enlightenment, salvation, liberation. Paul is saying forget all that just believe this specific claim that Jesus is the son of God who died for your sins and you're saved. It's transactional. It's about belief, not about inner transformation.
But Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them: “Men of Judah and all you residents of Jerusalem, let me explain this to you and pay attention to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it’s only nine in the morning. On the contrary, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:
And it will be in the last days, says God,
that I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity;
then your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
I will even pour out My Spirit
on My male and female slaves in those days,
and they will prophesy.
I will display wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below:
blood and fire and a cloud of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the great and remarkable Day of the Lord comes. Then everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.
“Men of Israel, listen to these words: This Jesus the Nazarene was a man pointed out to you by God with miracles, wonders, and signs that God did among you through Him, just as you yourselves know. Though He was delivered up according to God’s determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him. God raised Him up, ending the pains of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it. For David says of Him:
I saw the Lord ever before me;
because He is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart was glad,
and my tongue rejoiced.
Moreover, my flesh will rest in hope,
because You will not leave me in Hades.
or allow Your Holy One to see decay.
You have revealed the paths of life to me;
You will fill me with gladness
in Your presence.
“Brothers, I can confidently speak to you about the patriarch David: He is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn an oath to him to seat one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing this in advance, he spoke concerning the resurrection of the Messiah:
He was not left in Hades,
and His flesh did not experience decay.
“God has resurrected this Jesus. We are all witnesses of this. Therefore, since He has been exalted to the right hand of God and has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit, He has poured out what you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into the heavens, but he himself says:
The Lord declared to my Lord,
‘Sit at My right hand
until I make Your enemies Your footstool.
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah!”
Forgiveness through the Messiah
When they heard this, they came under deep conviction and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Brothers, what must we do?”
“Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And with many other words he testified and strongly urged them, saying, “Be saved from this corrupt generation!”
A Generous and Growing Church
So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added to them.
It's a "major innovation" because Christianity is from God, not man. Men love to think they can save themselves. Actually, following God was always a Faith matter, never a works one.
Jesus taught works save
Literally where? What Verses do you think say this?
Do you want to know how you will be saved? pay attention to what Jesus said: "If you bring it into being within you, (then) that which you have will save you. If you do not have it within you, (then) that which you do not have within you [will] kill you." - Gospel of Thomas (70)
Jg5 is the owner of c/synagogueofsatan so he's being stupid. His reeee'ing over those communities is irrelevant because SR is against all those things. Apparently JG5 wishes that someone else had them.
OK. Makes sense. SwampRangers mentioned to me "she just really likes Paul". She claims to be "a follower of the Way of Jesus Christ". That's fine with me. A lot of Christians have similar beliefs. But, if I were to agree with TINAE we would both be wrong.
IMO, Paul or Saul of Taurus was not a real person. And even if it was, a marginal character at best. To me Paul is nothing more than an intelligence asset working on behalf of Roman imperial interests to neutralize the most dangerous threat the empire had ever faced, Jewish fanaticism. Something that the CIA & Mossad institution at that time would make up/create. That's what they do today, psyops... and I'm certain nothing changed in 2,000 years.
Paul is saying forget all that Jesus taught, just believe this specific claim that Jesus is the son of God who died for your sins and you're saved. To me this is transactional. It's about belief, not about inner transformation. If Jesus's followers after his death believe this, slam dunk, the empire has won. And the jews would be happy, after all they didn't consider Jesus the Messiah. And after reading "By Way of Deception" by Victor Ostrovsky, that's exactly what I would do if I wanted to take over the movement. And neutralize the revolution. Invent a Paul who would teach exactly as he did. Good works don't matter. What matters is belief. Faith in Jesus as savior. If you believe, then you are saved. If you don't believe, then you are damned. No matter how good a person you are.
How can one or two control the narrative if everyone has equal right to speak, Joe?
Is some speech better at controlling narratives than other speech? If so, why wouldn't we all have equal ability to use better speech? If not, how could contributions control narrative when they are nothing but speech?
What is the "narrative" you refer to anyway? Do you mean the tenor of the collective message of all contributions here as received by the readers' minds? How could anyone control that any more so than anyone else?
Perhaps you're speaking of rules? But in the absence of active moderation everyone judges the rules for themselves and they are effectively only an honor code, and rules are about behavior and not narrative; do you perhaps mean that by our desiring enforcement of rules there will be some change as if rulebreakers contribute to narrative in a way that would be harmful to enforce against? That would be an odd conclusion, that the violation of communally selected rules is somehow a benefit to the narrative. You are truly mystifying.
Oh, and was there something you wanted me to listen to or to bend about? Whatever you like, according to only one rule, that I don't bend the good conscience given to me.
Everyone has equal right to walls of text trying to debunk. If they are on topic we call that free speech. Nothing is truly "spam" here because you solicit it by participating, but some things are off-topic enough to be loosely called spam, and everyone has an equal right to that. To whatever degree rules against off-topic contribs are enforced, they are enforced equally.
Everyone has equal right to "cry" to global mods, whether or not the motive is to censor opposition. If this were actually a censorship platform at the admin level I would've left long ago. Equal enforcement of rules isn't censorship; only rules against particular content are censorship, but the rules here are not content-based.
So it looks like you've proven that nobody can control the narrative because every contributor has equal rights. Mods and admins have power to control narrative via unjust or imbalanced enforcement, but that's not going on here, and if it were we'd just demonstrate it's happening and take fitting action as a community.
Why do you lay stress on Paul "converting" when people who are Jewish by ancestry didn't need to convert? (Becoming a Pharisee wasn't a conversion, it was essentially a handshake and a promise.)
Are you familiar with the many Pharisees who accepted Jesus as Messiah? Not just Paul, but probably Hillel, then Nicodemus, Joseph, the scribe not far from the kingdom, and Gamaliel are known, and there are indications of many others in the movement. The siege of Jerusalem (from which the Christians escaped) was the point from which Pharisaism consolidated without Jesus, before which it had remained an open question. And when it was open, some Pharisees supported and some rejected, just as you note. The exact circumstance is in Acts 8:1-3, where Saul has just officiated at Stephen's "execution" and zealously persecuted other Christians in Jerusalem with the support of those who had Stephen persecuted (this was about 36, with the stronger leadership of James coming quite later, more like 45). The other narratives of Acts 8 indicate results of the dispersion before focusing back on Saul's reaction to his Jerusalem work being so well-supported, namely his zeal to go to Damascus; that literary decision is justified because that trip led to a lot of consequence for the whole and needed to be dealt with fully and separately from the Acts 8 narratives. So I don't see anything problematic, and I do see a little bit of potential anachronism between Saul and James.
Anyway, I'm glad we're all crossing online tonight, I respect your opinion, which is why my other comment asks how you like to work together when we have divergent opinions.
Really? name one thing I said that is a falsehood or a lie?
Maybe because I have doubts about the existence of a historical Paul. But, what if my doubts are founded? Who was Paul and where did he come from? We actually know very little about the early life of Paul, which itself is suspicious for someone so important. What we do know is that he's from a place called Tarsus, which is part of the Jewish diaspora in what is now modern Turkey. He himself was Jewish by ancestry. But crucially, he was a Roman citizen. And this is extremely rare for a Jewish person. You could only become a Roman citizen in three ways. First, you could be born to citizen parents, which is probably Paul's situation. He tells us in the Bible, I was born a Roman citizen. Therefore, my parents were citizens. This means his family was very wealthy and part of the Roman elite. Second, you could earn citizenship by serving in the Roman military for 20 years. Third, you could be granted citizenship by the emperor as a reward for exceptional service to the state. So, it's very hard to be a Roman citizen. Only a small percentage of people in empire had citizenship. But Paul was a citizen which gave him enormous privileges. He could appeal directly to the emperor. Local authorities had to treat him with respect.
Paul converted and became a Pharisee. Now, Pharisees were Jewish religious teachers who would eventually evolve into rabbis. And as a Pharisee, Paul was apparently very fanatical. We know that converts often become more extreme than people born into a tradition. And as a Pharisee, Paul was supposedly tasked with destroying the Jesus movement because it was heresy. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, but according to the Pharisees, he wasn't. Therefore, his followers were spreading false teachings. But wait, this makes no sense. After Jesus death James the Just and the followers of Jesus were in Jerusalem and they were being protected and honored by the Pharisees. So why would the Pharisees send Paul to destroy the movement they were protecting in their own city? This is a major contradiction that no one has adequately explained, in my opinion. And I'm allowed to have my own opinion, is that right?
I'm saying Paul was changed from the pharisee known as Saul, that is the power of Jesus. The other apostles were suspicious too and that got sorted.
How do we even know Robert Frost wrote that poem? We weren't there..
(There are processes in place)
You can have all the opinions you'd like but when you display them as fact you take it to a different level where I'm able to do the same because I trust the Lord in what He says and wrote as absolute Truth.
I just replied to someone else who apparently knows you, SwampRangers. I'm just going to copy & paste my reply here. maybe you understand better by reservations when it comes to Paul.
IMO, there are many contradictions in the Bible when it comes to Paul... if you read carefully. To me Paul is nothing more than an intelligence asset working on behalf of Roman imperial interests to neutralize the most dangerous threat the empire had ever faced, Jewish fanaticism.
Let me give you an example, Paul decides to go to Damascus to destroy the Jesus movement there. But on the road to Damascus, something extraordinary happens. He sees a blinding light. He hears the voice of Jesus saying, "Paul, Paul, why are you persecuting me and my people?" And at this moment, Paul has what we now call a Damascus moment, a sudden conversion, a complete reversal of belief. And Paul at this point becomes a fanatical follower of Jesus, even though he never met Jesus in life and never met any of Jesus's original disciples. This is extremely weird, but he becomes convinced that he understands Jesus's message better than anyone. And he decides he's going to spread this message to everyone throughout the Roman Empire. So what does Paul do? He starts going to synagogues around the empire telling Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. And he begins to build the structure and organization that will become Christianity. Now, at this point, they're not called Christians. They're still Jews. And the Jesus movement is considered a branch of Judaism. But Paul introduces several radical innovations. None of it makes any sense to me.
The first major innovation is Paul's teaching that Jesus is the Messiah and that through faith in Jesus, you will achieve salvation. This is very different from what Jesus himself taught. Jesus taught that it's through good works, through compassion, through love, through helping others that you achieve spiritual liberation. But Paul teaches good works don't matter. What matters is belief. Faith in Jesus as savior. If you believe, then you are saved. If you don't believe, then you are damned. No matter how good a person you are. Think about how radical this shift is. Jesus taught that everyone has the divine spark within them and through right action through cultivating that spark you achieve enlightenment, salvation, liberation. Paul is saying forget all that just believe this specific claim that Jesus is the son of God who died for your sins and you're saved. It's transactional. It's about belief, not about inner transformation.
Acts 2:14-41
Peter’s Sermon
But Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them: “Men of Judah and all you residents of Jerusalem, let me explain this to you and pay attention to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it’s only nine in the morning. On the contrary, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:
And it will be in the last days, says God,
that I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity;
then your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
I will even pour out My Spirit on My male and female slaves in those days,
and they will prophesy.
I will display wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below:
blood and fire and a cloud of smoke. The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the great and remarkable Day of the Lord comes.
Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
“Men of Israel, listen to these words: This Jesus the Nazarene was a man pointed out to you by God with miracles, wonders, and signs that God did among you through Him, just as you yourselves know. Though He was delivered up according to God’s determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him. God raised Him up, ending the pains of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it. For David says of Him:
I saw the Lord ever before me;
because He is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart was glad,
and my tongue rejoiced.
Moreover, my flesh will rest in hope,
because You will not leave me in Hades. or allow Your Holy One to see decay.
You have revealed the paths of life to me;
You will fill me with gladness
in Your presence.
“Brothers, I can confidently speak to you about the patriarch David: He is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn an oath to him to seat one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing this in advance, he spoke concerning the resurrection of the Messiah:
He was not left in Hades,
and His flesh did not experience decay.
“God has resurrected this Jesus. We are all witnesses of this. Therefore, since He has been exalted to the right hand of God and has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit, He has poured out what you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into the heavens, but he himself says:
The Lord declared to my Lord,
‘Sit at My right hand
until I make Your enemies Your footstool.
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah!”
Forgiveness through the Messiah
When they heard this, they came under deep conviction and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Brothers, what must we do?”
“Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And with many other words he testified and strongly urged them, saying, “Be saved from this corrupt generation!”
A Generous and Growing Church
So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added to them.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202%3A14-41&version=HCSB
It's a "major innovation" because Christianity is from God, not man. Men love to think they can save themselves. Actually, following God was always a Faith matter, never a works one.
Literally where? What Verses do you think say this?
Do you want to know how you will be saved? pay attention to what Jesus said: "If you bring it into being within you, (then) that which you have will save you. If you do not have it within you, (then) that which you do not have within you [will] kill you." - Gospel of Thomas (70)
FYI SwampRangers is the owner of c/Porno c/Yahweh and c/Satanism
He's aligned with TINAE and their goal is to control the narrative. Do not expect them to listen or bend in any way.
I have no expectation. What does TINAE stand for?
Jg5 is the owner of c/synagogueofsatan so he's being stupid. His reeee'ing over those communities is irrelevant because SR is against all those things. Apparently JG5 wishes that someone else had them.
So what? why do I care about that. I don't judge anyone, JG5 included.
Thisisnotanexit
OK. Makes sense. SwampRangers mentioned to me "she just really likes Paul". She claims to be "a follower of the Way of Jesus Christ". That's fine with me. A lot of Christians have similar beliefs. But, if I were to agree with TINAE we would both be wrong.
IMO, Paul or Saul of Taurus was not a real person. And even if it was, a marginal character at best. To me Paul is nothing more than an intelligence asset working on behalf of Roman imperial interests to neutralize the most dangerous threat the empire had ever faced, Jewish fanaticism. Something that the CIA & Mossad institution at that time would make up/create. That's what they do today, psyops... and I'm certain nothing changed in 2,000 years.
Paul is saying forget all that Jesus taught, just believe this specific claim that Jesus is the son of God who died for your sins and you're saved. To me this is transactional. It's about belief, not about inner transformation. If Jesus's followers after his death believe this, slam dunk, the empire has won. And the jews would be happy, after all they didn't consider Jesus the Messiah. And after reading "By Way of Deception" by Victor Ostrovsky, that's exactly what I would do if I wanted to take over the movement. And neutralize the revolution. Invent a Paul who would teach exactly as he did. Good works don't matter. What matters is belief. Faith in Jesus as savior. If you believe, then you are saved. If you don't believe, then you are damned. No matter how good a person you are.
How can one or two control the narrative if everyone has equal right to speak, Joe?
Is some speech better at controlling narratives than other speech? If so, why wouldn't we all have equal ability to use better speech? If not, how could contributions control narrative when they are nothing but speech?
What is the "narrative" you refer to anyway? Do you mean the tenor of the collective message of all contributions here as received by the readers' minds? How could anyone control that any more so than anyone else?
Perhaps you're speaking of rules? But in the absence of active moderation everyone judges the rules for themselves and they are effectively only an honor code, and rules are about behavior and not narrative; do you perhaps mean that by our desiring enforcement of rules there will be some change as if rulebreakers contribute to narrative in a way that would be harmful to enforce against? That would be an odd conclusion, that the violation of communally selected rules is somehow a benefit to the narrative. You are truly mystifying.
Oh, and was there something you wanted me to listen to or to bend about? Whatever you like, according to only one rule, that I don't bend the good conscience given to me.
Walls of spam trying to "debunk"
Crying to global mods to censor opposition
It's that simple.
Everyone has equal right to walls of text trying to debunk. If they are on topic we call that free speech. Nothing is truly "spam" here because you solicit it by participating, but some things are off-topic enough to be loosely called spam, and everyone has an equal right to that. To whatever degree rules against off-topic contribs are enforced, they are enforced equally.
Everyone has equal right to "cry" to global mods, whether or not the motive is to censor opposition. If this were actually a censorship platform at the admin level I would've left long ago. Equal enforcement of rules isn't censorship; only rules against particular content are censorship, but the rules here are not content-based.
So it looks like you've proven that nobody can control the narrative because every contributor has equal rights. Mods and admins have power to control narrative via unjust or imbalanced enforcement, but that's not going on here, and if it were we'd just demonstrate it's happening and take fitting action as a community.
Why do you lay stress on Paul "converting" when people who are Jewish by ancestry didn't need to convert? (Becoming a Pharisee wasn't a conversion, it was essentially a handshake and a promise.)
Are you familiar with the many Pharisees who accepted Jesus as Messiah? Not just Paul, but probably Hillel, then Nicodemus, Joseph, the scribe not far from the kingdom, and Gamaliel are known, and there are indications of many others in the movement. The siege of Jerusalem (from which the Christians escaped) was the point from which Pharisaism consolidated without Jesus, before which it had remained an open question. And when it was open, some Pharisees supported and some rejected, just as you note. The exact circumstance is in Acts 8:1-3, where Saul has just officiated at Stephen's "execution" and zealously persecuted other Christians in Jerusalem with the support of those who had Stephen persecuted (this was about 36, with the stronger leadership of James coming quite later, more like 45). The other narratives of Acts 8 indicate results of the dispersion before focusing back on Saul's reaction to his Jerusalem work being so well-supported, namely his zeal to go to Damascus; that literary decision is justified because that trip led to a lot of consequence for the whole and needed to be dealt with fully and separately from the Acts 8 narratives. So I don't see anything problematic, and I do see a little bit of potential anachronism between Saul and James.
Anyway, I'm glad we're all crossing online tonight, I respect your opinion, which is why my other comment asks how you like to work together when we have divergent opinions.