Paul preaches against Creation

[Marsh]

Am I disputing that Paul was a Pharisee? No, Paul was a Pharisee. Then Jesus revealed himself to Paul. After receiving Jesus as Lord, Paul was no longer a Pharisee. Read your OT prophets, especially Ezekiel; then you'll understand.

Where does Jesus make this comment? You need to brush up on your gospels, Wolfie. That passage should be common knowledge.

So... are you going to get around to proving your arguments soon? So far Paul is a lot more convincing than you are.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Although Paul is not commanding humanity to become celibate, he is setting a very bad example that priests (and nuns) in the Catholoic church will be destined to follow, and this has been the cause of much sexual misconduct commited by these priests as the suppresion of natural desires often leads to other undesirable sexual conduct (with the choir boys or the nuns, etc).

As Genesis said, "it is not good for a man to be alone". Women were created to be his companions, emotionally and sexually.

Wolfgang

I'd just like to point out that the rate of those who molest children in the Catholic clergy is about the same as most other sects and religions. We are unfairly singled out because of our size and how much we stand out in society. Celibacy really has nothing to do with it and most protestant ministers after seeing how hard it is to support both a family and a flock wish they had remained celibate.


Yet others - including non-Catholic academics such as Philip Jenkins - have observed that the Catholic Church is being unfairly singled out by a secular media which they say fails to highlight similar sexual scandals in other religious groups, such as the Anglican Communion, various Protestant churches, and the Jewish and Islamic communities. The term paedophile priests, widely used in the media, implies a distinctly higher rate of paedophilia within the Roman Catholic priesthood when in reality its 1.5-2% is no higher than any other segment of society and lower than many. Yet one does not, Catholic representatives note, read of paedophile teachers, paedophile police or paedophile politicia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_C...se_allegations


Note: I’m not supporting what they did I'm appalled. I' just pointing out that celibacy has little to do with it.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by JJM

It has nothing to do with it. But it shows that Jesus also condoned Celibacy for those who could handle it and said they would be rewarded for it. And if Jesus condoned it you can't get mad a Paul for doing the same.

Lev 21:18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous
Lev 21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
Lev 21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
Lev 21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

Deu 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

Since Jesus did not come to contradict the Father, this is a troublesome verse, which may require further study. Perhaps this is a segment of the Gospel of Q that has been inserted by the redacter of Matthew. In any case Jesus does not suggest that marriage be avoided as Paul does.

Originally Posted by JJM

Also once again you don't understand what an apostle is. He was sent by Christ in a vision. He was the only one who heard the words but those around him saw the light.

Saul could not produce the names of any witnesses for this alleged vision, nor could he keep the details of his story straight as these details are quite different later in the Acts.

Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD speechless, HEARING the voice but NOT SEEING anyone.


Acts 22:9 states they did NOT HEAR the voice.
Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground and DID HEAR the voice.






Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

2Cr 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Since Paul cannot produce the names of the men he claimed were his companions, they cannot be questioned, and it is equally true none of these alleged companions ever testified independently of these alleged events of Paul's alleged vision. Paul's claim to having witnesses is therefore merely hearsay.





Further, Saul-Paul is both a self-admitted murderer and persecutor of Christians AND a Pharisee who certainly cannot be trusted to testify of the truth.

Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

Further, Paul was not qualified to be an apostle since he did not fulfill the following:



Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Blessed be the Word of Yah and His Son Yahshua!
And The Twelve Apostles of the Lamb!!

Wolfgang

[I, Brian]

We seem to be moving from the discussion a little - there's real benefit to keeping to the issues of celibacy of and procreation in this thread.

I'm curious, though - how would quoting Leviticus be relevant if Jesus had fulfilled the law?

EDIT: That isn't meant to ask the question of whether the Law of Moses had been fulfilled or not, as much as how Mosaic proscriptions apply to celibacy within Christianity, when so much of Leviticus is deemed no longer required in Christianity anyway.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by Marsh

Am I disputing that Paul was a Pharisee? No, Paul was a Pharisee. Then Jesus revealed himself to Paul. After receiving Jesus as Lord, Paul was no longer a Pharisee. Read your OT prophets, especially Ezekiel; then you'll understand.

Where does Jesus make this comment? You need to brush up on your gospels, Wolfie. That passage should be common knowledge.

So... are you going to get around to proving your arguments soon? So far Paul is a lot more convincing than you are.

Long after his so-called conversion, Paul boasted of his status as a Pharisee. There is no record of Paul renouncing this status.

Phl 3:5 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

You claim Jesus revealed himself to Paul. But we only have Paul's word for this, the word of a confessed murderer and a Pharisee. Th names or testimony of the required 2 or 3 witnesses is never provided.

You mention Ezekiel but you do not quote his verses. This is not only condescending to me but to others on this list.

I have been providing solid evidence to support my arguments from the beginning.

It is your liberty to be convinced by Paul. But can you refute Victor's many points in 'the pauline copnspiracy'?

Hallelu YAH !!

Wolfgang

[JJM]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Lev 21:18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Lev 21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

Lev 21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

Lev 21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.



Deu 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.



Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].



Since Jesus did not come to contradict the Father, this is a troublesome verse, which may require further study. Perhaps this is a segment of the Gospel of Q that has been inserted by the redacter of Matthew. In any case Jesus does not suggest that marriage be avoided as Paul does.

Jesus doesn't mean a literal eunuch he is referring to someone who doesn't marry. Also He says that if a man can stand not being married let him. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it] Paul says if a man can be celibate to do it. SO they are at one with each others teachings on this subject.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Saul could not produce the names of any witnesses for this alleged vision, nor could he keep the details of his story straight as these details are quite different later in the Acts.

Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD speechless, HEARING the voice but NOT SEEING anyone.





Acts 22:9 states they did NOT HEAR the voice.

Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground and DID HEAR the voice.

Number one Paul didn't write Acts Luke did so just because they aren't mentioned in Luke's writing doesn’t mean Paul didn't know them. Also Acts 26:14 doesn't say they heard it just that they fell to their knees however that is irrelevant. This may simply a copping error. The Old Testament claims that Goliath was killed by two different people but then it shows that the person other than David actually killed Goliaths cousin in another verse. Are we to assume that David was lying about killing Goliath simply because of a copying error? Also many people believe that the verse in 22:9 in the Greek means they didn't understand the voice not that they didn't hear it. I truly don't know.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

You are corrupting this verse for you own purposes. In 18:15 it says to go first by yourself also it is talking about telling a sinning person he is sinning without needlessly embarrassing him not divine revelation.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

2Cr 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Paul is referring to a trial in Deuteronomy not divine revelation. God didn't reveal himself to the Prophets and two or three of his friends he just went to the prophet.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Since Paul cannot produce the names of the men he claimed were his companions, they cannot be questioned, and it is equally true none of these alleged companions ever testified independently of these alleged events of Paul's alleged vision. Paul's claim to having witnesses is therefore merely hearsay.

Once again just because Luke doesn't say their name doesn't mean Paul couldn't

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Further, Saul-Paul is both a self-admitted murderer and persecutor of Christians AND a Pharisee who certainly cannot be trusted to testify of the truth.

Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

It’s very unchristian to look at someone’s past faults. Especially before their conversion.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Further, Paul was not qualified to be an apostle since he did not fulfill the following:







Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.



Blessed be the Word of Yah and His Son Yahshua!

And The Twelve Apostles of the Lamb!!



Wolfgang

Paul was ordain in Acts 13:3

[JJM]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Long after his so-called conversion, Paul boasted of his status as a Pharisee. There is no record of Paul renouncing this status.

Phl 3:5 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

You claim Jesus revealed himself to Paul. But we only have Paul's word for this, the word of a confessed murderer and a Pharisee. Th names or testimony of the required 2 or 3 witnesses is never provided.


You mention Ezekiel but you do not quote his verses. This is not only condescending to me but to others on this list.

I have been providing solid evidence to support my arguments from the beginning.

It is your liberty to be convinced by Paul. But can you refute Victor's many points in 'the pauline copnspiracy'?

Hallelu YAH !!



Wolfgang

Paul in the verses following what you quoted states that the things mentioned above are a loss this includes his status as a Pharisee. Furthermore being a Pharisee was belonging to a sect of Judaism if he started following another he obviously stopped his previous. That is like saying this man became a Catholic but never stopped being Baptist that doesn’t make sense.

[JJM]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Lev 21:18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous
Lev 21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
Lev 21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
Lev 21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

Deu 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

Since Jesus did not come to contradict the Father, this is a troublesome verse, which may require further study. Perhaps this is a segment of the Gospel of Q that has been inserted by the redacter of Matthew. In any case Jesus does not suggest that marriage be avoided as Paul does.

Also even though Christ wasn't referring to actual eunuchs in the latter half of his statement above. He as the fulfillment of the new covenant does away with such segregation when he tells his disciples to make followers of all people.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by JJM

Jesus doesn't mean a literal eunuch he is referring to someone who doesn't marry. Also He says that if a man can stand not being married let him. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it] Paul says if a man can be celibate to do it. SO they are at one with each others teachings on this subject.

I would say that Jesus says what he means. If He wanted to say something different He had the words at His disposal to do so, It is not up to us to put new words in His mouth. But in any case, He is not suggesting that celibacy was better than marriage as Paul was.

Wolfgang

[JJM]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

I would say that Jesus says what he means. If He wanted to say something different He had the words at His disposal to do so, It is not up to us to put new words in His mouth. But in any case, He is not suggesting that celibacy was better than marriage as Paul was.

Wolfgang

What Christ is saying here and how it has been interpreted through the ages is that some people can't get married because they where born a eunuch some people can't get married because they where mutilated in a way that caused them not to be able to be married. And some people don't get married because they choose not to for the Glory of God. If someone became a literal eunuch because he chose to he would fit in the second category and Christ would have said some people where forced into it by men not simply made that by men. Then He says that those who can do this should. Why then would Christ imply that if we can not get married we should if it wasn't better?

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by JJM

Paul in the verses following what you quoted states that the things mentioned above are a loss this includes his status as a Pharisee. Furthermore being a Pharisee was belonging to a sect of Judaism if he started following another he obviously stopped his previous. That is like saying this man became a Catholic but never stopped being Baptist that doesn’t make sense.

Let's look at these verses:

Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

Phl 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Phl 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

Phl 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,

In this last verse, Paul appears to be claiming that his heritage is worthless compared to his professed beleif in Christ. But he cannot undo his heritage any more than he can undo his boasting, his foolishness or his habitual lying.

2Cr 11:16 I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.
2Cr 11:17 That which I speak, I speak [it] not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
2Cr 11:18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.
2Cr 11:19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye [yourselves] are wise. 2Cr 11:20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour [you], if a man take [of you], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.
2Cr 11:21 I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.
2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.

One moment Paul appears to renounce his heritage as worthless, yet at other times he cannot help but to boast of it. And it is highly likely that Paul is lying about his Benjamite ancestry since he appears to be physically related to the ruling Herodians (who are not Jews or Benjamites but are Idumean proselytes). Paul is like a politician. . . . or a shape shifter

1Cr 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;




1Cr 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

1Cr 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.

Just like the weather, if you don't like what he's saying, just wait five minutes and he'll have a new yarn to spin. And he is not above lying, but he insists he is above the Law.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?




1Cr 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

He "will not be brought under the power of any". Doesn't that sound like something Satan would say?




More and more he is sounding like he is serving another master.

2Cr 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Perhaps his close assocaition with Satan expalins why the viper on Malta did not harm him.

Act 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid [them] on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

Act 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the [venomous] beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

Act 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.

Act 28:6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

Just like the shark who would not bite the lawyer, out of professional courtesy for a colleague, so has this viper spared Paul?




Actually, I could go on and on, (as this is quite entertaining) but it is not the burden of proof for a critic of Paul to disprove Paul's alleged vision of Christ. Rather, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that he did experience this vision.

As Carl Sagen once said: "Extraordionary claims require extraordinary proof."

Wolfgang

[JJM]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Let's look at these verses:

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Phl 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;



Phl 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.



Phl 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.



Phl 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,











In this last verse, Paul appears to be claiming that his heritage is worthless compared to his professed beleif in Christ. But he cannot undo his heritage any more than he can undo his boasting, his foolishness or his habitual lying.



















2Cr 11:16 I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.

2Cr 11:17 That which I speak, I speak [it] not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.

2Cr 11:18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.

2Cr 11:19 For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye [yourselves] are wise. 2Cr 11:20 For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour [you], if a man take [of you], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.

2Cr 11:21 I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also.

2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so [am] I. Are they Israelites? so [am] I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so [am] I.













One moment Paul appears to renounce his heritage as worthless, yet at other times he cannot help but to boast of it. And it is highly likely that Paul is lying about his Benjamite ancestry since he appears to be physically related to the ruling Herodians (who are not Jews or Benjamites but are Idumean proselytes). Paul is like a politician. . . . or a shape shifter

Ok Let me explain what Paul is saying Philippians. He is saying that anyone who thinks that they can be saved by simply following the law with out the faith to back it up is a fool. He says that he used to do this and consider himself Holy because of his heritage. However He says that what ever graces he may have for being a strict follower of the Law are a loss because they won't bring him salvation. He is renouncing his belief that being Hebrew makes him close to God. He's not saying he is no longer Hebrew of course he can't change the fact that he's Hebrew anymore than I can change the fact that I'm Polish.



Now in his letter to the Corinthians he is saying something similar. That these Proud people are all these things but so is he but they are nothing to boast about. They call him weak but all the things that they say make them great he is. It is convenient that you stop where you do before Paul points out that not only is he what they say they are but also a Christian minister and a bold follower something they aren’t. And thus is he is weak then they must also be weak because he is greater than them. Truthfully though he knows he is weak and his boasting is sarcastic but they are no greater than him. I suggest you read the rest of this chapter. Also Even if Paul was denouncing his heritage in Philippians it doesn't matter because he wrote it six years after the second letter to the Corinthians which means that he may not have denounced it at the time of the Corinthian letter.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

1Cr

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;









1Cr 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.



1Cr 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.











Just like the weather, if you don't like what he's saying, just wait five minutes and he'll have a new yarn to spin.

Paul is saying that he lowered himself, a Roman citizen and a Christian, to the level of those he is trying to convert. Making himself a lowly servant to them to convert them like Jesus commanded at the last supper.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

And he is not above lying, but he insists he is above the Law.



Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?









1Cr 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.











He "will not be brought under the power of any". Doesn't that sound like something Satan would say?

Ok once again you are taking things out of context. If you read the next passage:





And why not say - as we are accused and as some claim we say - that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve



You see that Paul is actually saying that this way of looking at actions is wrong.



In the Corinthians letter he is quoting them in this passage and then goes on to refute them.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

More and more he is sounding like he is serving another master.







2Cr 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Oh come on you've got to be kidding me. He is saying that demons are attempting to make him sin because he is a good Christian. Not that he serves Satan. Really this one is just preposterous. Even out of the context of the rest of the passage it makes sense.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Perhaps his close assocaition with Satan expalins why the viper on Malta did not harm him.











Act 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid [them] on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.



Act 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the [venomous] beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.



Act 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.



Act 28:6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.









Just like the shark who would not bite the lawyer, out of professional courtesy for a colleague, so has this viper spared Paul?

You are acting now like the People who claimed Christ was working with Satan. I suggest that you read Matthew 12:22-32.



Also in Mark 16:17-18 Christ says:

And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues: they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.



While don't get me wrong I think the whole Pentecostal snake handling thing is a little crazy to say that Paul is working for Satan because a snake didn't bite him is unbiblical.

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Actually, I could go on and on, (as this is quite entertaining) but it is not the burden of proof for a critic of Paul to disprove Paul's alleged vision of Christ. Rather, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that he did experience this vision.



As Carl Sagen once said: "Extraordionary claims require extraordinary proof."



Wolfgang

A Muslim could say the same thing about the resurrection. No where out side of the bible does anyone claim to have witnessed it. Granted in Josephus’s writings he says others claimed to have seen it but he didn't claim to have. I wouldn't argue that I'm responsible to prove what has been an unquestioned matter of faith for centuries because you have a hunch that he may have been crooked based on a conspiracy theory and a bunch of misused bible verses. I could use some bible verses to show that Peter wasn't Human if I really wanted to and then claim you have to prove that he was because I can't prove a negative even though what I'm claiming is ludicrous and poorly founded. So don’t pull that I’ve refuted everything you’ve said and you just keep pulling more out. SO I just ask you really look at what you are saying and think about it. You’ll see that it doesn’t make any sense. Especially the argument that this thread was started on. Because Christ backs up what he said and Christ can’t go against his own teachings because then they wouldn’t be christ’s teachings.

[Marsh]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

Long after his so-called conversion, Paul boasted of his status as a Pharisee. There is no record of Paul renouncing this status...

[/indent]You claim Jesus revealed himself to Paul. But we only have Paul's word for this, the word of a confessed murderer and a Pharisee. Th names or testimony of the required 2 or 3 witnesses is never provided...

I have been providing solid evidence to support my arguments from the beginning.

Once again poor Paul has been taken out of context. Paul was refuting the idea that one can be justified in the flesh when he made those statements. Why else would he have said "Whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things"?

And no, I didn't claim that Jesus revealed himself to Paul; Luke did. The same Luke who wrote one of the most important pieces of writing of all time.

And I disagree that you have made solid arguments.

PS: The passage from Ezekiel is chapter 18.

[WolfgangvonUSA]

Originally Posted by JJM

Also in Mark 16:17-18 Christ says:

And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues: they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.

I can hardly believe you are quoting the Longer Ending of Mark (in double brackets).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm



FORGERY IN THE

GOSPEL OF MARK?

var bnum=new Number(Math.floor(99999999 * Math.random())+1);document.write('');Forgery is perhaps a rather harsh word. Within Christian religious circles, the term "apocryphal addition" is commonly used to describe a passage that an unknown copyist added to the original manuscript.

Conservative Christians, and some others, believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. This means that God inspired its authors to write error-free text. However, the concept only applies to the original, autograph copies, not to later additions, deletions, "corrections" etc. Thus, the various endings after Mark16:8 are not necessarily inerrant.



The original ending of Mark:

Some of the oldest copies of the Gospel of Mark, the Sinaitic (circa 370 CE) and Vatican (circa 325 CE), end at Mark 16:8. Papyrus-45 (a.k.a. P-45) is an even older version of Mark, but it is incomplete; none of its text from Mark 16 has survived. Various additions after Mark 16:8 appear to have been added later by unknown Christian forgers. One addition was quoted in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century CE.

Chapter 15 of Mark describes Jesus' death and burial. Chapter 16 describes how Mary Magdalene, Mary (the mother of James), and Salome went to the tomb on Sunday morning. They found that the stone blocking the tomb had rolled back. A young man in the tomb told them that Jesus had risen, and that they should tell the disciples that he had gone to Galilee where they should meet him. The Gospel ends by describing how the women trembled and said nothing to anyone about their experience.

The Gospel is viewed by many as incomplete. It appears to ends abruptly. The reader has been primed to expect an account of the women telling the disciples of the empty tomb, and a subsequent description of a meeting of Jesus and his the disciples in Galilee. However, none is forthcoming.

Theologians have offered 4 explanations for this strange ending:

1. The writer of the Gospel did actually intend it to end it abruptly. This is a possibility because over a dozen ancient Greek compositions have survived which end sentences with the Greek word "gar" as Mark 16:8 does.

2. The author was interrupted (perhaps by death) and never finished the Gospel.

3. The Gospel of Mark did originally continue beyond Verse 8, but the ending was accidentally destroyed: perhaps the scroll was damaged or the last page of the codex was lost.

4. Mark 16 originally extended beyond verse 8, where it described the meeting of Jesus and his disciples. However, it was intentionally destroyed because it conflicted with the Gospel of Luke or Matthew. The perpetrator may have felt that Christians might doubt the accuracy of the Christian Scriptures if the Gospels did not agree precisely. Scholars have pointed out that the lost ending of Mark presumably would have described the meeting between Jesus and the disciples as happening in Galilee, whereas Luke says that it occurred near Jerusalem. This explanation also sounds unreasonable, because Mark 16:1 already disagrees with Matthew 28:1 over the number of women who visited the tomb: (Matthew describes that only two women went to the tomb: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark 16:1 says there were three women and adds Salome.) Surely, if someone were to go to the effort of destroying the ending of Mark in order to make the Gospels harmonize, then they would have altered Mark 16:1 and also modified:



16:8 to delete a reference to Salome, and



16:7 to change the location of the meeting from Galilee to Jerusalem.


Also, a person who intentionally destroyed the ending would probably have cleaned up the end of verse 8 to make it appear as if that was the true ending, and leave no trace of the forgery.

The most ancient full manuscripts of Mark end mid-sentence with Mark 16:8. A variety of endings appear in later manuscripts:


The Longer Ending: This consist of verses 9 to 20, and is the ending found most often in Biblical translations. They describe that Jesus visited Mary Magdelene, who told the disciples about the empty tomb. But the disciples did not believe her. Jesus then appeared to two of the disciples who told the others; still they did not believe that he was risen. Afterwards, Jesus was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God. The disciples then followed the Great Commission. Theologians often refer to this passage as the "Marcan Appendix," because it appears to have been written by a later copyist, and not by the author of the rest of the Gospel of Mark. It "has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent." 1 The Appendix is incorporated without comment in the King James Version of the Bible. However, more recent authorities suggest that it is a forgery:



A note in recent copies of the New International Version of the Bible states: "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."



Most biblical translations contain a footnote indicating that the verses were not written by the author of Mark.



Mohamed Ghounem & Abdur Rahman comment: "...approximately 100 early Armenian translations, as well as the two oldest Georgian translations, also omitted the appendix." 2



"The longer ending...differs in vocabulary and style from the rest of the Gospel, is absent from the best and earliest mss. now available, and was absent from mss. in patristic times. It is most likely a 2nd-cent. compendium of appearance stories based primarily on Luke 24, with some influence from John 20." 3

There is a break in the flow of the story between verses 14 and 15. This might be evidence that the forger used two different sources when creating the longer ending.

The additional passage is quite important for a number of reasons, because it contains important material relating to the duties of Christians to proselytize, the criteria needed for personal salvation, and some of the powers granted to Jesus' disciples:



Mark 16:15 includes a direct quotation from Jesus that is usually called the "Great Commission." It instructs the 11 surviving disciples to go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Conservative Christians regard the Great Commission to be their prime directive.



Verse 16 contains Jesus criteria forsalvation. In order to be saved, a person must:



"believe" - presumably this refers to belief in the "good news."



"be baptized" - one must first be baptized before one is saved.

This appears to disagree with other passages in the Bible which discuss different criteria for salvation.



Jesus told his disciples that they would be able to cast out devils, speak with new tongues, heal the sick, and be immune from death by snake bite or poison. The Church of God with Signs Following have interpreted these verses as the basis of their occasional practices of drinking poison or allowing themselves to be bitten by poisonous snakes. Many have died as a result of this testing of their faith.





The Shorter Ending: One Old Latin manuscript, the Codex Bobiensis, has survived from circa 400 CE. It contains a "shorter ending" in place of the "long ending."

One translation reads:

"But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible includes this verse as a footnote.

The validity of this ending is suspect for a number of reasons:



"Earlier in Mark 16, it contains an interpolation which seems to have an affinity with the 'Gospel of Peter'..." 4 That gospel is one of almost 50 gospels that were circulated among the early Christian movement, but which were never accepted into the official canon of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).



Part of Mark 16:8 has been deleted. This text said that the women kept silent about the empty tomb; they told none of the disciples about it. If the copyist had left this verse intact, it would blatantly conflict with the "shorter ending."



"The so-called shorter ending consists of the women's reports to Peter and Jesus' commissioning of the disciples to preach the gospel. Here too the non- Marcan language and the weak ms. evidence indicate that this passage did not close the Gospel." 3



Some theologians believe that the Shorter Ending was probably written by an unknown forger, who based it on the Gospel of Matthew. His motivation was to quickly wrap up the Gospel less abruptly.

For the entire article, go to
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm

[JJM]

Originally Posted by WolfgangvonUSA

It "has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent." 1

This line means that it is Part of the Bible it doesn't matter who wrote it. It’s still cannon. Similarly the last five chapters of Jeremiah weren’t written by him nor are they even his prophecies but that doesn't change their status as biblical text.





However if you really need a Verse our side of the last 12 verses of Mark here:



Luke 10:19

I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.



It’s not as definite but it does show God giving the apostles power over snakes.