maestroferddi:
Can I reasonable assume you are not Sarassin?

America Sarassin will know, only, time will tell...

BabaGnoni:

America Sarassin will know, only, time will tell...

In all these hide and seek games you guys are playing, remember daris God o...

striktlymi: If Paul taught and preached falsehood, don't you think the other Apostles who were present in Paul's time would have objected to his teachings?

Gbam !

Sarassin:

There were huge objections to Paul’s teachings, most of the objections by other sects (read my previous quotations) preceded the NT which is largely revised to present a unified disposition. You can glean remnants of the objections to Paul’s teachings in the confrontation between Peter and Paul (Gal 2:11-13). But for the real action you have to look at the apocryphal books, a good one is the letter of Peter to James as a preface to the Clementine Homilies, I reproduce it here for you;

‘For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law. . . . But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the law.” ‘(Letter of Peter to James, 2.3–5)

Please brother, which Bible are you reading because i could not find that verses you quoted in my Bible. First epistle of Peter or Second Epistle of Peter?

maestroferddi: Can I reasonable assume you are not Sarassin?

"........It is a tale told by .........full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". (Macbeth act 5, scene 2)


Welcome to the thread Maestro, fair to say you have given me a hammering ! Would that you had done this by refuting even the least falsehood of Paul, I would have more respect for you. You would not be Christian if you did not seek to cast all manner of aspersion as opposed to dealing with the issues, I don’t hold it against you.

I owe you no explanations but solely to exonerate my good friend BabaGnoni, I would state he is not I.

Ayomivic:

Please brother, which Bible are you reading because i could not find that verses you quoted in my Bible. First epistle of Peter or Second Epistle of Peter?

It is an apocryphal book, The Clementine Homilies

BabaGnoni:

That is exactly what you aren't getting
- same conjecture I earlier made back then
The monicker has nothing to do with Islam nor the Arabs at the time of the Crusades
The seemingly similar sound or pronunciation of the handle and the Arabian crusader is accidental or coincidental
LOL throws you off the scent, albeit not deliberately planned that way, I think
I bet he's nursing a smug smile at this display of not knowing this fact.

Had a chuckle actually at your play on words.

Sarassin:


"........It is a tale told by .........full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". (Macbeth act 5, scene 2)


Welcome to the thread Maestro, fair to say you have given me a hammering ! Would that you had done this by refuting enough the least falsehood of Paul, I would have more respect for you. You would not be Christian if you did not seek to cast all manner of aspersion as opposed to dealing with the issues, I don’t hold it against you.

I owe you no explanations but solely to exonerate my good friend BabaGnoni, I would state he is not I.

Methink the Shakespeare you are deploying to salvage a rather lost cause should better be situate within the confines of your convoluted approach. Maybe my sins were in daring to blow your rather tenous cover...

Morning Sarassin,

I have a question for you and I humbly request an answer. I will ask the question and then go ahead and provide background to the question.

In the usual manner in which we, humans, usually will group human beliefs, what exactly are you? Christian, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, Traditionalist, Satanist, New Age or basically free thinking?

I say this because a little drama happened on the thread were ideas are being shared on how to organize an e-convention on this forum. I had requested names of Christians that could be nominated to present papers. Someone sent me a PM and include your monicker. I updated the list on the thread. Another person, a nlander, called me and said Sarassin is not a Christian and requested I remove the monicker. I did but explained to the other person who sent it earlier.

Why this story? The answer is: why this thread?

I usually do not discuss with anyone on nl except they are professing Christian who hold the bible as infallible.

So I ask the question to know "which one you dey?"

I trust you will oblige me an answer.

@Maestro

Then its time to pay for your sins.....

I Said :

At this point it is fair to ask the question, does Paul get a bad rap ?

Afterall, Paul makes no claim to have studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem. He wrote in educated Greek, he was at home with the Greek Septuagint, he knew next to nothing about Hebraic/Aramaic expressionism. Clearly it is Luke who wishes to portray Paul as having the very best of Jewish education. It explains Paul’s remarks that Jewish people in Judea who converted to worship Jesus did not know him or even what he looked like, he had likely never been to Jerusalem prior to his conversion.

Paul does not tell us where he came from, merely claiming to be an ‘Israelite’ of the stock of Abraham. It is again Luke who places him in Tarsus, a city we are reliably told by the Roman Geographer Strabo, was one of the “best three cities in the world for a person to develop his philosophical and rhetorical abilities” Luke may have wished to enhance Paul’s intellectual pedigree by making Paul a resident of a great philosophical center.

In Acts 22:25 we are informed by Luke that Paul is a ‘Roman citizen’ Paul himself never says anything of the sort, and in fact very few Jews were actually citizens of the empire. For one thing, being a citizen meant performing occasional sacrifices to the gods for the well-being of the state. Would a highly religious Jew such as Paul done so? It seems unlikely. Here again it may be that Luke is trying to stress just how prominent Paul was—a citizen of Rome, even—before his conversion.

The conclusions are there to be drawn.

You wrote :

...Conclusions underpinned by grievously poor understanding of historical considerations and insidious revisionism?

Some very heavy words above.

A challenge is thrown to you, expantiate on my grievously poor understanding[/i]and [i]insidious revisionism

Nail your colours to the mast, Did Paul himself state he studied under Gamaliel ? If he did, how come be betrays a curious lack of Pharisaical legalism.
Did Paul himself state where he came from or Luke ?
Does Paul himself state he was a Roman citizen ?

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God , for they are foolishness unto them, neither can he unstandand them, for they are spiritualy discern. Dont jst gv ur idea or though abt biblical issue.
All scriptures are Spirit-breath into its writter.

If there is any1 1 I wil want to see after Christ, d person is Paul. He was gven a vision higher than that of other disciples (2 chorins 12)
If d op want to knw details and wat exactly pauling revelation is upto, I will refer him to d book "new creation realities" by E.w kenyo.
Also, d op must knw dat d fact a teacher taught me does nt stop me from teaching my teacher in d nearest future. Peter and other disciples disciple paul bt wat sud we say abt d grace gven to hm even right 4rm his conversion process- it is indeed a great grace. Paul preaches Christ and nt himself

It is only a matter of time. A Daniel will certainly come to judgement...

Sarassin:

I have no need to prove Luke wrong he does an admirable job of that himself. I have given you one instance of where he got his facts wrong but obviously because it is an obscure fact, Christians either are unaware of it or gloss over it.

Here is a glaring one. Compare Paul’s account of the Jerusalem Council as he records in his Letter to the Galatians, (Gal. 2) to the account of Luke as recorded in The Acts (Acts. 15)

Two completely differing accounts, Paul records it as a Private meeting, Luke says otherwise, both cannot be right, either Luke got his facts wrong or Paul was a liar. You tell me.

Did you read that Galatians 2 up to verse 9

DrummaBoy: Morning Sarassin,

I have a question for you and I humbly request an answer. I will ask the question and then go ahead and provide background to the question.

In the usual manner in which we, humans, usually will group human beliefs, what exactly are you? Christian, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, Traditionalist, Satanist, New Age or basically free thinking?

I say this because a little drama happened on the thread were ideas are being shared on how to organize an e-convention on this forum. I had requested names of Christians that could be nominated to present papers. Someone sent me a PM and include your monicker. I updated the list on the thread. Another person, a nlander, called me and said Sarassin is not a Christian and requested I remove the monicker. I did but explained to the other person who sent it earlier.

Why this story? The answer is: why this thread?

I usually do not discuss with anyone on nl except they are professing Christian who hold the bible as infallible.

So I ask the question to know "which one you dey?"

I trust you will oblige me an answer.

Thank you DrummaBoy, of course I will oblige, I am not a professing Christian, in fact I hold no religion. I practise Tantra.

Sarassin:

Thank you DrummaBoy, of course I will oblige, I am not a professing Christian, in fact I hold no religion. I practise Tantra.

Thank you also for the reply.

Cheers.

Ayomivic:
Did you read that Galatians 2 up to verse 9

Yes of course.
What exactly is your point ?

Sarassin:

Most certainly nothing adds up where Paul is concerned, here is the first contradiction;

"When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night to kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket". (Acts 9:23-25)

"At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped his hands". (II Corinthians 11: 32,33)

So, was it the Jews of Damascus from whom Paul fled, or was it from the governor under King Aretas? Further, did they lower him over the wall, or through a window in the wall?

In the accounts you have outlined. First, If Paul had to escape from Damascus either to save his life or to avoid arrest, and then spent time in Arabia, why would he have returned to Damascus where his life would again have been endangered? The reasonable answer is that there was no foray into Arabia, and no return to Damascus.

Here is Paul defending himself before Agrippa;

"Wherefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but declared first to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of their repentance" (Acts 26:19,20).

What is conspicuous by its absence is…a mention of Arabia….and a return to Damascus, and definitely we know he was unknown in Judea!

This is very easy to explain. Aretas was the king of then Arabia that encapsulated regions such as Edom, Jordan and Damascus. He had governors under him that reported to him and relayed taxes of course. The 'unknown' governor in Paul's account was in charge of the Damascenes province that had many devout Jews living there. Just like during the days of Pontius Pilate and Herod the Jews at times put pressure on the governors to either arrest someone for them or kill them. Similar to how Jesus and then James was killed and also how Paul was imprisoned on many occasions. In Damascenes (at this point in time) that was the case. The Jews put pressure on the governor to have Paul arrested.

Secondly, use the King James version to study that story and cross-reference it with what Luke said in Acts. It checks out. The KJV said Paul was lowered down through the Window of city wall. So your question becomes pleonastic. (I would post the scriptures for you later if you are still in doubt).

As per whether he moved to Arabia and back to Damascus. I have explained it before to the Pastor and I will try to belabor myself. Paul was on his way to Damascus. When he got close to it (precisely at the Arabian deserts) he met with Jesus and was blinded by the light. Then he was led into Damascus to meet with Ananias who healed him. Paul stayed in Damascus for a short while preaching to people around there especially in Damascenes. As he preached he drifted to areas like Bashan and other parts of Northern Arabia (which is still in Arabia as whole). This where he received the bulk of his revelations from Jesus. The Acts account states that Paul stayed here "many days". Then he RETURNED AGAIN to Damascus. The Galatians account was more specific. He said he spent about 3 years between Arabia and Damascus. It was when he returned to Damascus (with his revelations of getting saved by Grace) that the Jews began to plan to kill him. The message of Grace annoyed and continues to annoy them till date. So his fellow believers helped him escape to Jerusalem where he met with the Apostles. Thats why he said none of their messages added anything to him. He had already received his revelations from Jesus and had preached for 3 years before meeting them.

Hope this helps.

Johncuppa: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God , for they are foolishness unto them, neither can he unstandand them, for they are spiritualy discern. Dont jst gv ur idea or though abt biblical issue.
All scriptures are Spirit-breath into its writter.

If there is any1 1 I wil want to see after Christ, d person is Paul. He was gven a vision higher than that of other disciples (2 chorins 12)
If d op want to knw details and wat exactly pauling revelation is upto, I will refer him to d book "new creation realities" by E.w kenyo.
Also, d op must knw dat d fact a teacher taught me does nt stop me from teaching my teacher in d nearest future. Peter and other disciples disciple paul bt wat sud we say abt d grace gven to hm even right 4rm his conversion process- it is indeed a great grace. Paul preaches Christ and nt himself

I don't agree. Were it not for Marcion you wouldn't even know Paul existed.

Sarassin:
@Maestro

Then its time to pay for your sins.....




You wrote :



Some very heavy words above.

A challenge is thrown to you, expantiate on my grievously poor understanding[/i]and [i]insidious revisionism

Nail your colours to the mast, Did Paul himself state he studied under Gamaliel ? If he did, how come be betrays a curious lack of Pharisaical legalism.
Did Paul himself state where he came from or Luke ?
Does Paul himself state he was a Roman citizen ?

Now we shall put things in proper perspectives. I am constrained to give this rejoinder despite the fact that you have subsisting identity/credibility issues.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your argument is that Luke the author of the Acts of the Apostles was embellishing Paul by making illogical/false imputations to him. I expect you to know that the Acts, is for all intents and purposes, quasi-historical and provides background information about the early/New Testament church. Now to successfully refute Lukan reference viz direct (Acts5:34) and indirect (Act22:3) to the Gamaliel-Paul relationship, you need to provide a cast-iron instance from the bible that said otherwise. We are not talking of languid speculations that Paul was a member of the Sadducees. It might interest you to know that the Pharisees and Sadducees were both members of the Sanhedrin who differed chiefly on the subject of resurrection.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOn the historicity of the montage of wild hypotheses you bandy about, it is very obvious that your knowledge of Jewish history is suffering from anaemic paucity. By way of a brief synopsis, the dispersal of the Jews started from the Division of the Kingdom of Solomon among Rehoboam and Jeroboam way down to the Babylonian/Assyrian captivity. We all know that the northern kingdom of Israel was uprooted into captivity that lasted for several decades and that at the end of the interregnum some of the Jews returned back to Jerusalem/Israel whilst several Jewish communities remained and existed in several paths of the Levant even as far west as Spain. Now is it difficult to extrapolate that Paul was Jew born in Tarsus (situate in mordern Turkey) not that far from Jerusalem could have been very active in Jewish theology and politics? The accounts of Acts was very clear that the world Jewry had, in one way or the other, an established interaction with Jerusalem. So where does your argument stand?

Sarassin:

It is an apocryphal book, The Clementine Homilies

Apocrypha -according to dictionary meaning- n. Those bonk of Old Testament not accepted as part of Hebrew Scripture

Apocryphal - : Adj. (of a story widely circulated but unlikely to be truth.

Realy, the verse you quoted sound like cook up verse.Pls don't quote from that book again.

Ayomivic:

Apocrypha -according to dictionary meaning- n. Those bonk of Old Testament not accepted as part of Hebrew Scripture

Apocryphal - : Adj. (of a story widely circulated but unlikely to be truth.

Realy, the verse you quoted sound like cook up verse.Pls don't quote from that book again.

Proverbs4:21: "Keep your heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues of life." - KJV.

Sarassin:

I don't agree. Were it not for Marcion you wouldn't even know Paul existed.

Proofs? Marcion was an excommunicated heretic/Ebionite...

@Sarassin. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On the question of whether Paul was a Roman citizen, I refer you to a certain Cornelius (see references in Acts), a high ranking commander of the Italian band whose devotion was attested to in the bible. Cornelius was in all probability not practising Roman paganism but was nonetheless a Roman citizen. The Roman empire was not a theocracy like say the latter-day Islamic caliphates.

maestroferddi: First and foremost, try and internalise the nuggets of suggestions I have mooted in sundry cases above. I am sure your predilection for contradictions would be reasonably tempered thereafter...

You still don't get it. You have made several unsubstantiated charges against me without recourse to truth. Like your hero Paul, it appears you like lies and lying. You are now lying against me. I have asked you severally to point out my errors or contradictions. This is the third time I have asked and you have now struck out. Your assertion that you made suggestion to me is nothing but garbage.

If you are a Christian, you must be able to handle the truth as commanded by 2 Timothy 2:14-15. Unlike you, I don't do private interpretation of the bible because it was condemned:

- 2 Peter 1:20-21:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. KJV

Any one that is doing private interpretation should take heed:

◄ Revelation 22:16 ►
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

I have also followed the banter between you and Sarassin and you have the same modus operandi. You specialize in casting aspersions without making any points. Because you are afraid to discredit the quoted verses of the Bible, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Sarassin is winning the arguments between you hands down because you make no sense. Personal attacks reduces you as it clearly shows that you not a class act.

maestroferddi: Just like I said-see vide-you are absolutely misguided. The bible is your defence and you are quoting it out of context;saying what it did not say...

Just how am I misguided? How? Did I misquote any bible verse? You and your ilk can't handle the truth so you continue to make frivolous charges against me. Substantiate your charges and/or claims or hold your peace. You've presented to iota of evidence to support your wild accusations.

Christians should be “open to reason” (James 3:17 RSV), that we should “reason together” (Isaiah 1:18) and “he who hates correction will die” (Proverbs 15:10) . Those of you who can't handle the truth or corrections should take heed.

maestroferddi: I just can't see the point for your needless bickering. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles while the Twelve Apostles were basically for the Jews from whom salvation came. The revelational account also spoke of the twelve tribes of Israel...

Christ only had 12 apostles and if you want to make Paul the 13th "apostle of the Gentiles" that would be your personal choice. However, it would not be supported by the bible.

Paul coveted the position of the apostle so much so that when Mathias was chosen to be the replacement of Judas Iscariot, he grumbled and mocked the selection. Why would Paul grumble about apostles “chosen of men” in Galatians 1:1 if he did not covet the apostleship given to Mathias in Acts 1:23-26?

He referred to Mathias as an apostle "chosen of men." Yet he was busy calling himself an apostle without any divine appointment.

After calling himself an apostle 16 times in Rom 1:1, 11:13, 1st Cor 1:1, 9:1, 9:2, 15:9, 2nd Cor 1:1, 12:12, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:1, Col 1:1, 1Tim 1:1, 1Tim 2:7, 2Tim 1:1, 1:11 and Titus 1:1, Paul drop all claims of apostleship when on the hotseat in Jerusalem claiming in Acts 26:16 only to be a “minister and a witness”.

The fact that he was a false prophet dogged him through out his lifetime. If you want to make him another apostle "chosen of men," just be his guest. What I know is that Christ had 12 apostles.

omonuan:

Just how am I misguided? How? Did I misquote any bible verse? You and your ilk can't handle the truth so you continue to make frivolous charges against me. Substantiate you charges and/or claims or hold your peace.

Christians should be “open to reason” (James 3:17 RSV), that we should “reason together” (Isaiah 1:18) and “he who hates correction will die” (Proverbs 15:10) . Those of you who can't handle the truth or corrections should take heed.

You make me laugh...

omonuan:

Christ only had 12 apostles and if you want to make Paul the 13th "apostle of the Gentiles" that would be your personal choice. However, it would not be supported by the bible.

Paul coveted the position of the apostle so much so that when Mathias was chosen to be the replacement of Judas Iscariot, he grumbled and mocked the selection. Why would Paul grumble about apostles “chosen of men” in Galatians 1:1 if he did not covet the apostleship given to Mathias in Acts 1:23-26?

He referred to Mathias as an apostle "chosen of men." Yet he was busy calling himself an apostle without any divine appointment.

After calling himself an apostle 16 times in Rom 1:1, 11:13, 1st Cor 1:1, 9:1, 9:2, 15:9, 2nd Cor 1:1, 12:12, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:1, Col 1:1, 1Tim 1:1, 1Tim 2:7, 2Tim 1:1, 1:11 and Titus 1:1, why does Paul drop all claims of apostleship when on the hotseat in Jerusalem claiming in Acts 26:16 only to be a “minister and a witness”?

The fact that he was a false prophet dogged him through out his lifetime. If you want to make him another apostle "chosen of men," just be his guest. What I know is that Christ had 12 apostles.

I am sorry your effort is too elementary to elicit further reactions from me. I may have to join others who have chosen to ignore you and your patent display of ignorance...

maestroferddi: You make me laugh...

You have said nothing intelligent or tangible throughout your wild ride and accusations. Since you have nothing better to add to this thread, you can keep on laughing to your self like a mad man. All you know how to do is to attack the messenger instead of the message. It is futile to continue with you any how

James 1:26, “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”

Proverbs 10:18 (NIV)

"Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads slander is a fool."

I am done with you.Thanks!

omonuan:

You have said nothing intelligent or tangible throughout your wild ride and accusations. Since you have nothing better to add to this thread, you can keep on laughing to your self like a mad man. All you know how to do is to attack the messenger instead of the message. It is futile to continue with you any how

James 1:26, “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.”

Proverbs 10:18 (NIV)

"Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and spreads slander is a fool."

I am done with you.Thanks!

What exactly is the message you are trying to pass across? Oga I do not possess the surfeit of time and energy to do your brand of argument. Could we know your religious/faith persuasion and orientation? The way you show-drop scriptures without minding whether they are apposite to the subject at hand is bizarre to put it mildly...

omonuan:

Just how am I misguided? How? Did I misquote any bible verse? You and your ilk can't handle the truth so you continue to make frivolous charges against me. Substantiate your charges and/or claims or hold your peace. You've presented to iota of evidence to support your wild accusations.

Christians should be “open to reason” (James 3:17 RSV), that we should “reason together” (Isaiah 1:18) and “he who hates correction will die” (Proverbs 15:10) . Those of you who can't handle the truth or corrections should take heed.

The bible admonished in 2 Timothy2:23: "But unlearned and foolish questions avoid, knowing that they gender strifes." So go and re-read the bible before coming to engage me so that we can have a constructive and mutually enriching interchange.

maestroferddi: Now we shall put things in proper perspectives. I am constrained to give this rejoinder despite the fact that you have subsisting identity/credibility issues.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your argument is that Luke the author of the Acts of the Apostles was embellishing Paul by making illogical/false imputations to him. I expect you to know that the Acts, is for all intents and purposes, quasi-historical and provides background information about the early/New Testament church. Now to successfully refute Lukan reference viz direct (Acts5:34) and indirect (Act22:3) to the Gamaliel-Paul relationship, you need to provide a cast-iron instance from the bible that said otherwise. We are not talking of languid speculations that Paul was a member of the Sadducees. It might interest you to know that the Pharisees and Sadducees were both members of the Sanhedrin who differed chiefly on the subject of resurrection.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOn the historicity of the montage of wild hypotheses you bandy about, it is very obvious that your knowledge of Jewish history is suffering from anaemic paucity. By way of a brief synopsis, the dispersal of the Jews started from the Division of the Kingdom of Solomon among Rehoboam and Jeroboam way down to the Babylonian/Assyrian captivity. We all know that the northern kingdom of Israel was uprooted into captivity that lasted for several decades and that at the end of the interregnum some of the Jews returned back to Jerusalem/Israel whilst several Jewish communities remained and existed in several paths of the Levant even as far west as Spain. Now is it difficult to extrapolate that Paul was Jew born in Tarsus (situate in mordern Turkey) not that far from Jerusalem could have been very active in Jewish theology and politics? The accounts of Acts was very clear that the world Jewry had, in one way or the other, an established interaction with Jerusalem. So where does your argument stand?

Quite disappointing really, to think I actually took you seriously for one second, this is nothing but high-falutin incoherency. “Quasi-historical” indeed, is that biblical speak for “half-truths”?