davidylan: lol you just have to give it to Mazaje. I started out trying to debunk his desperate nonsense then just gave up... there was no point. The deluded cant be helped.

[size=28pt]let the butthurt flow through you!!! [/size]

Mr Troll: [size=28pt]let the butthurt flow through you!!! [/size]

Misapplication. Not the time for butthurt jokes. Fail.

PhenomenonVFX: Hmmm. Interesting thread. I was too busy to get into the fray.




[This is the same Paul who has about 3 different versions of his conversion story.

Why should any body believe Paul?. . .A person with 3 very different accounts of his conversion who openly admits that he is a trickster. . .

PhenomenonVFX: Hmmm. Interesting thread. I was too busy to get into the fray.


This is not true. History is filled with so many people who fought for a cause and then abandoned their cause to start fighting for their enemies instead. Anyone can get disillusioned at any time.

What did Paul stand to gain?
Mazaje already answered that. Let me add to it
To understand what Paul stood to gain from Christianity, we have to try to look at his life before then. This is someone who was vigorously persecuting Christians. What did he gain by that? Power. Recognition. Respect. In a religious environment, he was trying to make a name as the most devout pharisee. The bible does not tell us much about his life then. So we dont actually know what made him change to Christianity. It could be that he wasnt getting the respect or recognition he desired. Or maybe he offended some fellow pharisees and they started getting jealous and plotting to kill him so he decided to join his victims who would be happy to have the murderer with them than against them. Or maybe he felt guilty for killing too many people and decided that helping Christianity spread will be an atonement for his sins. This is the same Paul who has about 3 different versions of his conversion story.

em sir, pls keep coming with the "or maybes",when you are done please let us know. or maybe he was offered amnesty by the christians, or maybe he decamped because the pharisee where getting more corrupt, they were not paying him enough and as such he had to decamp.....or maybe........

Bidam: kai.noble fada why you dey fall our hand na watched the video before commenting. It's really a good christian video depicting why christianity is not fake.

My bad, I'm very sorry! where I'm now d network is just too terrible, I tried reading subsequent posts to get an idea what was in video but got irritated wit mazaje comments. It annoying every time this guys try to discredit the faith wit bogus claims n assertions. I just shut ayenny02 up a few days ago.

I will say it again & again the integrity of the bible & faith in Christ can never be faulted! and dats to logicboy, ayenny02, mazaje and any of the other folks who rather than come to light are busy doing all the can to discredit it. As the scriptures said, they will fail in their enterprise.
By mazaje what do u believe in?

deSika:
em sir, pls keep coming with the "or maybes",when you are done please let us know. or maybe he was offered amnesty by the christians, or maybe he decamped because the pharisee where getting more corrupt, they were not paying him enough and as such he had to decamp.....or maybe........

Or maybe he wasnt even real.
I know it must hurt u how much we have debunked Paul but provide a better explanation if u could.
If only Paul had actually been truthful about his stories or if the bible was actually written by God, as claimed by Christians, there will be no need for all this speculations and doubts. Nobody disputes that the sun is shining when it is or the rain is falling when it is.
All hail Mazaje debunker of religions.

Logicboy03:


Misapplication. Not the time for butthurt jokes. Fail.

yo! I know you have a windows '95 brain but then lemme help you...
They can't come up with a good rebuttal because that was a scathing shot by Mazaje so all he could come up with was a lame ad hominem. Kapisce?

[size=16pt]IN THE INTEREST OF TRUTH, WE MUST NOT LET THIS THREAD DIE: MAZAJE'S WONDER POST MUST BE ADDRESSED BY ANONY AND CO: IF THEY DO NOT ADDRESS IT, POINT FOR POINT, THEN IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT INDEED THEY HAVE NO PLAUSIBLE RESPONSE, AND INDEED, PAULINE CHRISTIANITY IS A VERITABLE FRAUD.[/size]

Deep Sight: [size=16pt]IN THE INTEREST OF TRUTH, WE MUST NOT LET THIS THREAD DIE: MAZAJE'S WONDER POST MUST BE ADDRESSED BY ANONY AND CO: IF THEY DO NOT ADDRESS IT, POINT FOR POINT, THEN IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT INDEED THEY HAVE NO PLAUSIBLE RESPONSE, AND INDEED, PAULINE CHRISTIANITY IS A VERITABLE FRAUD.[/size]

Anony the coward?

The guy will either avoid it or he will start asking meaningless questions and using "special" definitions.


So far Anony has his own definition for
-Christian
-born again
-being in christ
-morality.

All these words have special entry in the Anony dictionary

Logicboy03:



Anony the coward?

The guy will either avoid it or he will start asking meaningless questions and using "special" definitions.


So far Anony has his own definition for
-Christian
-born again
-being in christ
-morality.

All these words have special entry in the Anony dictionary

dictionary.anonyism.com

Well, obviously the post was too heavy laden with substantive points.

Logicboy03:



Anony the coward?

The guy will either avoid it or he will start asking meaningless questions and using "special" definitions.


So far Anony has his own definition for
-Christian
-born again
-being in christ
-morality.

All these words have special entry in the Anony dictionary

Oh, by the way, we know you are Mr. Troll.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Thats because you can't! That post by Mazaje was world class and award winning, and it completely destroys every shred of Mr Anony's points. I challenge any christian to attempt rebutting his excellent points. NOBODY CAN.

Not really. A lot of what he wrote is emotional drivel that he cannot defend... but why bother? You cant change those who are sworn never to change even if the truth were presented to them.

Deep Sight: [size=16pt]IN THE INTEREST OF TRUTH, WE MUST NOT LET THIS THREAD DIE: MAZAJE'S WONDER POST MUST BE ADDRESSED BY ANONY AND CO: IF THEY DO NOT ADDRESS IT, POINT FOR POINT, THEN IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT INDEED THEY HAVE NO PLAUSIBLE RESPONSE, AND INDEED, PAULINE CHRISTIANITY IS A VERITABLE FRAUD.[/size]

I second that.

davidylan:

... but why bother? You cant change those who are sworn never to change even if the truth were presented to them.

You must be referring to people like davidylan, because those people have have sworn never to assess their strongly-held beliefs and convictions even if the truths like mazaje's post were clearly presented to them.

So why bother really....

Do not put too much hope on Greek texts as word of God. Where is Logia of Jesus in Aramaic. Where is Matthew’s Aramaic gospel?

P46 (175CE) is Greek manuscript with the largest percentage of difference on record. This just proved that Church have been changing words since early 2nd century at will.

Here is the words of the early church father, Origen (3rd century CE):
“The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” Origen, early church father in “Commentary on Matthew.”

Regarding the oldest surviving fragment, Colin Roberts compared P52 writings using ONLY 5 samples from the early 2nd century CE back in 1935 and concluded based on those 5 samples; P52 was from the early 2nd century.

(Brent Nongbri’s 2005. The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel)
What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. – Brent

Compare with 4th and 5th century codex-es. You will be surprise how Holy Spirit inside the scribes fail to prevent them from changing words of God.

Deep Sight:

Oh, by the way, we know you are Mr. Troll.

You are a silly fool.

submitter: Do not put too much hope on Greek texts as word of God. Where is Logia of Jesus in Aramaic. Where is Matthew’s Aramaic gospel?

P46 (175CE) is Greek manuscript with the largest percentage of difference on record. This just proved that Church have been changing words since early 2nd century at will.

Here is the words of the early church father, Origen (3rd century CE):
“The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” Origen, early church father in “Commentary on Matthew.”

Regarding the oldest surviving fragment, Colin Roberts compared P52 writings using ONLY 5 samples from the early 2nd century CE back in 1935 and concluded based on those 5 samples; P52 was from the early 2nd century.

(Brent Nongbri’s 2005. The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel)
What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. – Brent

Compare with 4th and 5th century codex-es. You will be surprise how Holy Spirit inside the scribes fail to prevent them from changing words of God.

I dont actually doubt this. I was having an argument with my dad (who attends Deeperlife by the way) just last month on the infallibility of the bible. And I pointed out many conflicting verses and other verses that points to the fact that the bible was written by racist bronze age herdsmen. My point to him was that God should have rained down the bible from the sky or written it on our hearts in the womb so that we will be born with it if He really cared about the bible. Personally, if a bible drops from heaven right now and lands in the next house to mine, and the guy in the next house reads it and says he has been chosen to read the contents and interprete it to me, I still wont believe it.

Deep Sight:

Oh, by the way, we know you are Mr. Troll.

Did you see it in your dream Mr deepsight?

Hmmmm...thought provoking video Anony...the second one got me cracked up with laughter.


Good show!

Still no response from our Christian soldiers.

Deep Sight:
Still no response from our Christian soldiers.

Response to what exactly?

mazaje:
Yes he did. . .Paul has NEVER seen Jesus when he was alive but still taught that the gift of salvation through grace occurs APART FROM any behavioral requirement.Romans 3:28

While James who according to the bible was with Jesus says that
by WORKS a man is JUSTIFIED, and not by FAITH only.James 2:24

Jesus according to the bible always upheld the Law of Moses. In the Sermon on the Mount, he made it very clear in Matt. 5:18-19: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." ("jot or tittle" in modern translations is "not one iota nor one dot".) Have heaven and earth passed away? Have ALL the prophecies, including those of the last days, been fulfilled? While Jesus ADDS TO the Law of Moses, he never detracts from it or undermines it.

Even some of the occasions when Jesus seems to add to the Law or teach in new and different ways, he goes to great lengths to show that it is based on the Law. For example, when this rabbi asked by a "lawyer" (one versed in the Law of Moses) what was the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus turns the question back to him and asks what is in the Law, and from that extrapolates his great commandments to Love God (from Deut 6:5) and Love Neighbor as Self (from Lev. 19:18) which was clearly the centerpiece of his ministry and his doctrine of ACTIVE love and compassion for all.

Paul, on the other hand, wants to throw out the Law of Moses.

The above demonstrates a very poor understanding of what Jesus, Paul and James preached.

I'll tell you the message they all preached and it is this: Salvation is by faith in Christ alone and not by observing the works of the Law of Moses.
This means that good works does not save a person rather it is God's grace that does. However this does not mean that salvation frees a person from the obligation to do good works. To say it in very simple terms: You do not do good works in order to earn salvation and make Heaven, you do good works because you are saved. Good works are the natural characteristics of a saved person.
To even illustrate it further I'll give you an analogy: You don't buy gifts for your wife so that you can have a good marriage. You buy her gifts because you are in love with her. Buying her gifts is a natural characteristic of a good marriage. I'll show you a few passages to illustrate this point.

Jesus:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Luke 18:10-14
(Read it and ponder what Christ is clearly talking about and tell me if you really think we are justified by our faith in God or in our works).
Paul teaches the exact same thing:
Romans 4:5 ....And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

Does this mean that Paul thinks good works are unnecessary and we will still be justified if we continue in sin? Absolutely not Here is Paul again on the matter

Paul:
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. - Romans 6:15-18

(Clearly, you can see that Paul is not telling us to abandon righteous living because we live under grace)

Now we come to James. Does James say we should abandon faith because we are justified by good works. Absolutely not.
Let us read what James has to say:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17

Has james said faith is unnecessary? No. Has he said that we are saved by good works? No. What James has said is if you have faith it should be evident by the works you do.

So to do a recap I'll post the verses you quoted.

You quoted....
James 2:24 - You see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Your intention was to make the argument that works and not faith is what justifies a man.

But in context it reads....
But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Do you see how faith worked with his works, and from the works faith was made complete? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God." You see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
James 2:20-24
Notice that the argument James is making is that true faith is characterized by good works but not the other way round. Notice also that the works talked about in James 2 are not Jewish traditional rites such as circumcision and Sabbath and washing of hands rather James is talking about caring for disadvantaged brethren as evidence of this faith.


Secondly you cited...
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

When read in context we see....
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

First of all notice that what Paul is referring to as works of the Law are Jewish traditional rites such as circumcision. In fact Paul wrote this letter to quell a dispute between Jew and Gentile Christians when the Jewish Christians were demanding the gentiles must be circumcised.
Notice (in red) that Paul makes it clear that he is not saying we should do away with the law rather he is saying that it is not those works that justify us but our faith in the sacrifice of Christ does. He even argues that the Law and the Prophets attest to this fact.

This is exactly the same way Jesus argued that Jewish customs such as the Sabbath, washing of hands e.t.c were not really what saved a man. However Christ also made it clear that He is not abolishing the Law rather He fulfills it. The fulfilment of the Law happened when Christ came and died for our sins. We who believe in Him are not bound by how well we perform certain rituals and outward ceremonial activities rather we are justified by grace through faith in Christ and empowered to do good works.

So my dear friend Mazaje, I see absolutely no contradiction between the messages of Jesus, Paul and James when read in the context in which they were written.


To be continued....

^^^

If the work done above is for the 'little ones' then no ish otherwise the effort was wasted...

Mazaje's post truly does not deserve a response for one simple reason: It lacks sincerity from him!!!

Mr anony:
The above demonstrates a very poor understanding of what Jesus, Paul and James preached.

I'll tell you the message they all preached and it is this: Salvation is by faith in Christ alone and not by observing the works of the Law of Moses.
This means that good works does not save a person rather it is God's grace that does. However this does not mean that salvation frees a person from the obligation to do good works. To say it in very simple terms: You do not do good works in order to earn salvation and make Heaven, you do good works because you are saved. Good works are the natural characteristics of a saved person.
To even illustrate it further I'll give you an analogy: You don't buy gifts for your wife so that you can have a good marriage. You buy her gifts because you are in love with her. Buying her gifts is a natural characteristic of a good marriage. I'll show you a few passages to illustrate this point.

Jesus:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Luke 18:10-14
(Read it and ponder what Christ is clearly talking about and tell me if you really think we are justified by our faith in God or in our works).
Paul teaches the exact same thing:
Romans 4:5 ....And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

Does this mean that Paul thinks good works are unnecessary and we will still be justified if we continue in sin? Absolutely not Here is Paul again on the matter

Paul:
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. - Romans 6:15-18

(Clearly, you can see that Paul is not telling us to abandon righteous living because we live under grace)

Now we come to James. Does James say we should abandon faith because we are justified by good works. Absolutely not.
Let us read what James has to say:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17

Has james said faith is unnecessary? No. Has he said that we are saved by good works? No. What James has said is if you have faith it should be evident by the works you do.

So to do a recap I'll post the verses you quoted.

You quoted....
James 2:24 - You see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Your intention was to make the argument that works and not faith is what justifies a man.

But in context it reads....
But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Do you see how faith worked with his works, and from the works faith was made complete? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God." You see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
James 2:20-24
Notice that the argument James is making is that true faith is characterized by good works but not the other way round. Notice also that the works talked about in James 2 are not Jewish traditional rites such as circumcision and Sabbath and washing of hands rather James is talking about caring for disadvantaged brethren as evidence of this faith.


Secondly you cited...
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

When read in context we see....
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since God is one--who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

First of all notice that what Paul is referring to as works of the Law are Jewish traditional rites such as circumcision. In fact Paul wrote this letter to quell a dispute between Jew and Gentile Christians when the Jewish Christians were demanding the gentiles must be circumcised.
Notice (in red) that Paul makes it clear that he is not saying we should do away with the law rather he is saying that it is not those works that justify us but our faith in the sacrifice of Christ does. He even argues that the Law and the Prophets attest to this fact.

This is exactly the same way Jesus argued that Jewish customs such as the Sabbath, washing of hands e.t.c were not really what saved a man. However Christ also made it clear that He is not abolishing the Law rather He fulfills it. The fulfilment of the Law happened when Christ came and died for our sins. We who believe in Him are not bound by how well we perform certain rituals and outward ceremonial activities rather we are justified by grace through faith in Christ and empowered to do good works.

So my dear friend Mazaje, I see absolutely no contradiction between the messages of Jesus, Paul and James when read in the context in which they were written.


To be continued....

What is all this epistle about that fails to address anything at all?. . .Paul clearly sort out to abolish the law of Moses and change many things like the dietary laws and laws of circumcision among other things. The main issue at hand here is who founded Christianity and if the people that founded Christianity as we know if today are following what Jesus said or made things up and created their own religion out of the Jesus character, a religion that actually involved some of the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings and theology that has nothing to do with him. Jesus and PAUL NEVER thought the same thing at least from the bible. The writings attributed to Paul are more propaganda & embellishment than reality.

Firstly NOWHERE in the bible did Jesus ever claim that salvation was for everybody. . .. Jesus SPECIFICALLY said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel and claimed he did NOT want the outsiders to be converted.(Mark 4). Jesus told those that followed him that they shall see him sit on the throne shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. He makes no mention of the gentiles when he was talking about judgement in his heavenly kingdom, he only referred to the 12 tribes of Israel not the gentiles. Paul who never meet Jesus came and said he is an apostle to the gentiles. . .

mazaje:
Paul claims he was attacking christians. . .Paul's entire campaign as depicted in acts has been dismissed as unlikely by many historians, for it is supposed that he would have no authority to arrest people and certainly no power to pull people out of Damascus. Some scholars like Rabbi Boteach say the Sanhedrin did not have this kind of power, and there is also a question as to whether Rome was in control of the city at that time or if the Nabeteans were. The two very contradictory accounts of how he became a christian are to be found in the book of acts, both stories can NOT be true but both accounts can be a lie. . .If Paul can lie about his conversion then he can lie about anything. . .Who is Paul? No body knows him anywhere, he wasn't a general in the Roman army or a prominent figure at all. Historically Christians were persecuted under Nero but the reason for their persecution was because Nero claimed they set fire on a building, No body knows Paul any where, his name does not appear any where outside the bible, to compare him to GEJ and BH is a complete joke, while every body knows GEJ no body knows Paul any where because he was just an ordinary man. He only claimed he was persecuting christians, no other documents supports that claim and the book of acts itself contradicts Paul own accounts in some places. . .

Here you have raised 4 objections

1. That it was highly unlikely for the Sahendrin to have the power to arrest people or take Christians out of Damascus. therefore the account of Paul persecuting Christians is false.
2. There is a dispute as to whether the Romans were in charge of Damascus at the time or whether it was the Nabateans.
3. There are two very contradictory accounts in the book of Acts about how Paul was converted
4. Paul was an unknown and therefore comparing him to GEJ vs Boko Haram is ridiculous.

My response:

Number 1. Why do you think that the Sahendrin didn't have such power? They had the power to arrest Jesus, try him and then hand him over to the Romans to be crucified. They also had the power to arrest Stephen, try him and then stone him to death. They also had the power to arrest and flog Peter and John

Here is an excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The extant references to the Sanhedrin are not sufficient to give an exact and detailed idea of its functions and of the position which it occupied. It is certain, however, that the extent of its power varied at different times, and that the sphere of its functions was restricted in various ways by the Roman government. One of these restrictions was Gabinius' above-mentioned division of the Jewish territory into five provinces, each with a sanhedrin of its own, whereby the authority and the functions of the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem were materially diminished. Its power was insignificant under Herod and Archelaus. After the death of these rulers its authority again increased, the internal government of the country being largely in its hands. It administered the criminal law, and had independent powers of police, and hence the right to make arrests through its own officers of justice. It was also empowered to judge cases that did not involve the death penalty, only capital cases requiring the confirmation of the procurator.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13178-sanhedrin#anchor5

From the above we can see that Jewish lands were under control of the Roman government and basically, the power of the Sanhendrin rose and fell depending on who was in power and how friendly he was to the Jews.
We also learn that after the death of Herod and Archelaus, the Sanhendrin increased in power including having the power to make arrests and hold trials and pass judgment. They were only withheld from carrying out capital punishment without the permission of the city's procurator.
Herod died in 4 BC, Archelaus died in 18 AD. The time of Paul persecuting Christians (about 30 AD) would fit perfectly with the time when the Sanhendrin had powers to make arrests, hold trials and pass judgment. It would also explain why Christ had two trials: one before the Sanhendrin and one before Pilate because the Jews wanted him dead.
What it might not explain is the death of Stephen but Stephen's then death didn't have an explicit pronouncement of judgment rather he was killed in a fit of rage as he spoke in his trial. Or maybe they could have obtained the permission of the city head. We are not told.

Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." And when he had said this, he fell asleep. Acts7:54-60

So once again, other than "Rabbi Boteach said so", why are you convinced the Sanhendrin did not have such power?


2. What difference will it make to the account of Paul's persecution of Christians whether the Romans or Nabateans were in charge of Damascus?

3. Could you point out the two accounts of Paul's conversion in the book of Acts and tell us why they you think they are contradictory?

4. You missed the point I was making by comparing Paul vs the Christians to GEJ vs Boko Haram. The point I was making is that it is ridiculous to suggest that a person who already has the political upper hand as the persecutor of a certain sect will leave his position because he envies the political clout of someone he has more authority than.
It makes no sense for Paul to become a Christian for reasons of fame because Christians at that time were despised by many and by Paul especially.



To be continued some more.....

striktlymi: ^^^

If the work done above is for the 'little ones' then no ish otherwise the effort was wasted...

Mazaje's post truly does not deserve a response for one simple reason: It lacks sincerity from him!!!

My brother, it is really not for Mazaje. We both know he is being dishonest. It is more for those who will probably read this thread in the future. So they don't fall into the trap of malicious bible twisters.

striktlymi: ^^^

If the work done above is for the 'little ones' then no ish otherwise the effort was wasted...

Mazaje's post truly does not deserve a response for one simple reason: It lacks sincerity from him!!!

He was talking about Paul and Peter as the founders of the religion who suffered for their faith, had nothing to gain, died for it etc. . .No of which is true. . .Historically during that time Christians were persecuted under Nero because he accused them of burning a building when people accused him or arson. . .Acts is one reason for a lot of the confusion about early christian history. . . . It pretends to describe the immediate years after Christ's death but it's clearly not a good historical source, being written many decades later and including a lot of mythologizing. Paul is one of the main characters, but at times it contradicts Paul's own accounts of events in his letters. . . . .It clearly has an agenda , it wants people to believe that all the problems between Paul and the Jewish Christians were smoothed over and resolved (in Paul's favor) and christian unity was achieved. . . . .

Paul's letters make it clear that James (who he calls the brother of Jesus) was the unquestioned leader of the early Christian movement, and that they were at odds , he criticizes both James and Peter pretty viciously. . . . Acts practically writes James out of the picture. . . He's not mentioned at all in the early sections, then suddenly pops up to issue a command at the "Jerusalem council" with Paul. If he was such an important figure that he could make decisions that were binding on Peter and Paul, how is it that Acts tells nothing about him except for that one brief appearance?

Acts also contains a lot of myth-making and unbelievable magical acts by the apostles. There are stories of apostles winning duels with magicians, and Peter striking dead a Christian couple who didn't turn over all their income to the church etc. . .

We also find out that Peter insisted on following Jewish dietary laws, until god sent him a vision of a magic "tablecloth" covered with all kinds of food and told him they were all "clean". (i.e. Paul's position). This would seem to prove that Jesus taught nothing of the kind. If Jesus had really proclaimed all foods to be clean, wouldn't Peter have known? Why would God need to send this vision to his No. 1 apostle? This seems to be a perfect example of fabricating scriptures, in this case to put god's stamp of approval on Paul's pro-gentile teaching. After all Paul claims he is the apostle of the gentiles. . . .

The point of Acts is to establish Paul as the successor to Jesus (to the detriment of Peter and James) and Luke as the successor to Paul (to the detriment of John Mark and Barnabas). It's pure propaganda. . . .These books were all brought to us by gentiles like Papias, Polycarp, Irenueus etc. . .

PhenomenonVFX: Hmmm. Interesting thread. I was too busy to get into the fray.


This is not true. History is filled with so many people who fought for a cause and then abandoned their cause to start fighting for their enemies instead. Anyone can get disillusioned at any time.

What did Paul stand to gain?
Mazaje already answered that. Let me add to it
To understand what Paul stood to gain from Christianity, we have to try to look at his life before then. This is someone who was vigorously persecuting Christians. What did he gain by that? Power. Recognition. Respect. In a religious environment, he was trying to make a name as the most devout pharisee. The bible does not tell us much about his life then. So we dont actually know what made him change to Christianity. It could be that he wasnt getting the respect or recognition he desired. Or maybe he offended some fellow pharisees and they started getting jealous and plotting to kill him so he decided to join his victims who would be happy to have the murderer with them than against them. Or maybe he felt guilty for killing too many people and decided that helping Christianity spread will be an atonement for his sins. This is the same Paul who has about 3 different versions of his conversion story.

The part in green is pure wild speculation from you.

Your task:

Tell us the three different versions of Paul's conversion as you have claimed there are

Mr anony:
My brother, it is really not for Mazaje. We both know he is being dishonest. It is more for those who will probably read this thread in the future. So they don't fall into the trap of malicious bible twisters.

Cool!


Great work too!

Mr anony:
The part in green is pure wild speculation from you.

Your task:

Tell us the three different versions of Paul's conversion as you have claimed there are

Acts 9:1-9. Here Paul sees the light and hear's the voice of Jesus and the people with him didnt see the light but they heard the voice. And he was to go into the city to be told what to do.

Acts 22:6-10. Here the people with him didnt hear the voice but they saw the light. And he was still to go into the city to be told what to do.

Acts 26:14-19. Here Paul is told by Jesus himself what to do. And actually it was so beautifully stated that I think Paul embellished a little in order to impress Agrippa.

Thanks for making me read the bible again after a long time. I was beginning to forget why I dropped it. Now I remember.
I believe in Jesus (he was truely God-sent) and his philosophy and basic teachings. Not the magical stories u guys have created to propagate ur religion.

Seriously, I have to hand it to Mazaje . The dude knows his stuff. I used to think I was the only one who could see the rivalry in the new testament (Back in the days when I was a devout christian, I used to bind and cast every spirit of doubt). Some books were dedicated to subtly proving the superiority of one person over another.
Just like I am still inclined to believe that the followers of John the baptist and Jesus may have been rivals. And John the baptist probably never made the claims about Jesus that the new testament, which was written by the followers of Jesus, says he did.
The first part of first chapter of the gospel of John dedicated itself to proving (more like claiming) that Jesus was God and John the baptist was not the light. You dont do that unless u are trying to win an argument of superiority with someone else who was claiming otherwise. The question now is who was the author of the gospel of John arguing with?
Thanks to the Holy Roman Catholic Church there are many things we may never be able to know about Paul and the early apostles because they burnt every book with opposing views or claims.