I think Christians like Paul because Christians are taught to read scripture passages - often times completely out of context. Pick a topic, look up "a" verse, and cling to "that verse" in complete isolation of every other verse around it or how it fits with the bible as a whole. I have been in churches in the past where I knew a passage was taken out of context. I actually say one time when a passage was speaking about satan, but the person preaching was reading as if it was about "Jesus" and the congregation applauded. I wasn't even in truth at the time, but looked at my husband and said "its about satan!" and showed him the entire chapter. We were appalled (and left that church, only to go to another that did the same one verse of a chapter of a book sort of thing).

But, taking Paul solely on individual verses - he has written some really cool things. Of course, many of those cool things don't line up with the rest of scripture. However, you would have to know the rest of scripture to realize that. However, in looking over some of the things of Paul - he did the same thing! He would often take scriptures out of context.

I didn't realize Paul was in opposition to Yahoshua because I didn't distinguish really who was saying what in scripture. I often times didn't know who was speaking. Now that I see more clearly and am studying on my own - it is clear.

One of the most dangerous things Paul did was himself telling people NOT to study. For instance, 1 Corinthians deals extensively with wisdom being destroyed (quoting Isaiah and probably out of context). In the 2nd chapter he even goes to say that he didn't come in "man's wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power). Of course, Yahoshua told us that it was a wicked generation that sought for a sign! Yahoshua came showing that He was fulfilling the prophesies that had been written. This means one would need to study to understand what it was Yahoshua was doing. In fact, had the people been studying Torah instead of focusing on the writings of the rabbi of their time they would have clearly been able to see who Yahoshua was and what He was doing.

Paul turned the focus of people to the concept of "spiritual" knowledge, and that "spiritual" knowledge is supposedly "foolish" to anyone who isn't spiritual. It provided great cover for his confusing and contradictory writings - you might not understand because you are looking at them "in the flesh" and not "in the spirit". They don't line up with scripture because you are not "spiritual" enough to understand them.

While Yahoshua told us that our Spiritual Mother would come to help us understand all things, She helps us understand the true meaning of the Torah, not some new and contradictory thing. Just reading through 1 Corinthians, almost every scripture Paul is supposedly quoting - he is partially quoting and using the quote completely out of context. I understand that the Scriptures didn't originally have chapter/verse titles - but that is all the more reason not to take one sentence in isolation. In fact, during the encounter between Yahoshua and Satan - it shows us exactly WHO started the entire take a scripture of of context thing - Satan himself! Yahoshua then told us how to counter this "pick and choose" - Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 record that Yahoshua told Satan that we are to live by EVERY WORD that proceeded from the mouth of Yah. Paul, again came and quickly sided again with the enemy by teaching Christian to go through any part of the Scripture, find something you like, and use it as you please. This is an example set by Satan, not by Yahoshua. Of course, by living by every Word from Yah - Christians would have to admit that the observing the Torah was still important - and that would really change everything.

I so enjoy reading all of the posts on this forum. Everyone is so well educated and passionate about the Father. It can be intimidating at times lol ;) Dajstill your words resonate with my own feelings in so many ways. I am very glad that you found this forum.

For me leaving Paul was easy unlearning all of the verses that I had memorized out of context as a child and pulled out for this time or that has been the more difficult part. I think that I have them all nicely filed away now.

I picture Paul as one of the first great politicians. He was most likely charismatic and he said what people wanted to hear and few people actually want to hear the truth. To be all things to all people. We can now see many different religious leaders doing the same thing. They are, after all, just following Paul's example.

Thank you so much everyone for sharing. It has been nice reading the conversations.

lol I had just checked out a christian web site that my sister is really into right now. It made me want to throw up. This chat room lay in stark contrast to that one. Everyone here desires a relationship based on knowing with whom it is. Not just emotional highs. It was very refreshing having just visited the other web pg. Hope you are having a great day :)

dajstill, I haven't read that particular book, but sometime ago I was presented with a similar proposition regarding a certain scroll found in the DSS which is believed by some to be James case against Paul, this was during the time of the writing of QP so Craig and I found it interesting enough that we each purchased a book containing many of the non biblical DSS, among them the one which was being referenced. After reading and rereading the scroll we both came to the same conclusion that we did not believe it to be from James or about Paul. It read more like it was written by a Jewish rabbi than James, and Paul's name is never mentioned. I don't know if this book is referencing the same scroll or not, but that was my experience.

I saved these soundbites mainly from YY or QP letters, which I thought quite good:

The fact that Paul claimed to see Yahowsha' on the road to Damascus in light of what Yahowsha' said about individuals who make such claims is game over.

The fact that Paul quoted Dionysus during that encounter is game over.

The fact that Paul spoke against circumcision is game over.

The fact that Paul's one prophecy was wrong is game over.

The fact that Paul misquoted the Torah is game over.

The fact that Paul said that the Torah could not save is game over.

When Paul misstated the events at the Jerusalem Summit, it was game over.

When Paul admitted to being demon possessed it was game over.

When Paul said that he pretended to be whatever was expedient, it was game over.

But if you want to boil it all down to one argument, when Paul wrote of two covenants, not one, with the one memorialized on Mount Sinai being of Hagar and enslaving, the case against him became irrefutable.

One of the reasons that people get all caught up justifying Paul is because of the way he wrote. Other than speaking against circumcision, he was circuitous by design. So until you understand his ploy, the half truths which permeate his arguments can be taken out of context and misinterpreted.

When a man or woman are honestly mistaken and hears the truth, they will either stop being mistaken or cease to be honest.

CG, too bad there's not Scripture verses to show the contrast.. IE: Scripture verse about Damascus from what Yahowsha said, vs paul's verses.. like a side by side..

Question:

The Torah states that if a man divorces his wife on grounds of adultery, and she marries another, as Israel was unfaithful to Yahowah, that man cannot legally re-marry that wife in the future. So, since Yahowah divorced Israel, and since God cannot contradict His own Torah, by what mechanism can He re-marry Israel in the future?

ISR 1998
Act 9:5 And he said, “Who are You, Master?” And the Master said, “I am יהושע, whom you persecute. It is hard for you to kick against the prods.”
KJV
Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

ISR 1998
Act 26:14 “And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me, and saying in the Heḇrew language,1 ‘Sha’ul, Sha’ul, why do you persecute Me? It is hard for you to kick against the prods.’ Footnote: 1See 21:40, 22:2.
KJV
Act 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Doing ISR & KJV search for kick, goad, or prick I get the following which have nothing to do with Paul’s quote: Jdg 3:31, 1Sa 2:29, Num 33:55, Psa 73:21, Eze 28:24, Deu 32:15

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bacchae
The Bacchae (Ancient Greek: Βάκχαι, Bakchai; also known as The Bacchantes) is an ancient Greek tragedy by the Athenian playwright Euripides, during his final years in Macedon, at the court of Archelaus I of Macedon. It premiered posthumously at the Theatre of Dionysus in 405 BC as part of a tetralogy that also included Iphigeneia at Aulis and Alcmaeon in Corinth, and which Euripides' son or nephew probably directed.[1] It won first prize in the City Dionysia festival competition.
The tragedy is based on the mythological story of King Pentheus of Thebes and his mother Agauë, and their punishment by the god Dionysus (who is Pentheus' cousin) for refusing to worship him.

Religious significance
Plays such as The Bacchae existed primarily for the purpose of religious practice and worship. Religion was connected closely with everyday life, and cities and local communities would come together to celebrate the worship of different deities. [17] Through plays, gods such as Dionysus could be celebrated. The Bacchae re-enacts how Dionysus had come to be a god and in ancient Greek theatre, "role-playing is a well-known feature of ritual liminality." [18] The Bacchae is a tribute to Dionysus and it is written in a way that favours him. It is a common understanding that worship is the play's main function. Deities were found in every locality of everyday life.[19] The play also highlights what Dionysus represents; he is the god of wine, ritual madness and ecstasy. [20] With this in mind, the play incorporates these aspects to depict how Dionysus is present in ancient Greek life. As an actor, religious worship is a direct experience. The actor would have experienced a "stepping out" of himself to become a representation of Dionysus. As a spectator, the experience comes from what is acted onstage, arousing emotions that sympathize with Dionysus. Collectively, through Dionysiac acting, there is a reintegration of the "other" into the "self," that is to say that Dionysus has been accepted and will be worshipped by the Greek people. [21]

http://ebooks.adelaide.e...au/e/euripides/bacchae/
PENTHEUS
A truce to thy preaching to me! thou hast escaped thy bonds, preserve thy liberty; else will I renew thy punishment.
DIONYSUS
I would rather do him sacrifice than in a fury kick against the pricks; thou a mortal, he a god.
PENTHEUS
Sacrifice! that will I, by setting afoot a wholesale slaughter of women 'mid Cithaeron's glens, as they deserve.

http://www.bartleby.com/8/8/3.html
PENTHEUS
Peace, thou! And if for once thou hast slipped thy chain,
Give thanks!—Or shall I knot thine arms again?

DIONYSUS
Better to yield him prayer and sacrifice 936
Than kick against the pricks, since Dionyse
Is God, and thou but mortal.

PENTHEUS
That will I!
Yea, sacrifice of women’s blood, to cry 940
His name through all Kithaeron!

http://euripidesofathens.blogspot.com/
P: Don't you instruct me. Rather, since you've escaped with your
freedom, hold on to it. Or shall I punish you again?
D: I would offer him sacrifice rather than kick against
the god's goads in anger, a piddly mortal man.
P: Oh, I'll sacrifice: with loads of feminine slaughter,
just like they deserve, in the valleys of Kithairon.

Sorry, too, Fred, but don't feel bad; I'll ask James if there is a prize for the longest salient post.

Been there, done that. Does not work (for me).

My approach of last resort: The person to whom I send material to must promise, affirm, swear on their most sacred whatever they will objectively read and respond to the evidence presented.

I recently found this writing by Hermann Detering:

http://beepdf.com/doc/11...ty_in_the_twilight.html


It is his opinion that Marcion wrote Galatians and probably many more of the "Pauline" letters. More reason to ignore the letters.

Yep could be true. Regardless of the origin here's what one gets from Paul's letters only:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope