Questions for Muslims

[freedomm]

Even if I assumed that Paul was indeed appointed by Jesus, it means nothing because what counts is what Paul actually did after his “appointment”.

Merely appointment by Jesus is not sufficiant to accept him as a true follower. You may ask: Why not? Think of Judas the traitor. He was appointed by Jesus in his life time alongwith other faithfull disciples. But what did Judas do later, even being appointed by Jesus and being an official/spiritual disciple? And he must have even seen Jesus’ signs, wonders and miracles too. He let his Master down and collaborated with Romans/ciminal Jews. He betrayed Jesus. It is his later betrayal that history will appropriate his real position. Despite being appointed by Jesus, Judas is Judas the traitor.

Now as far Paul, as I said before, first, there are contradictory reports obout his so-called “vision”. Second he used to persecute Jesus’ followers in the very life time of Jesus Christ. Third, all of Jesus’ miracles, wonders and signs did not impress him at all, let alone the beauty of Jesus’ Divine Message. Fourth, Paul himself was a Pharisee and son of Pharisees. Who could have known better than a Pharisee or Scribe, the importance of Divine Law and it’s observance in daily life for Eternal life/salvation?

Jesus is reported to have said that he came not abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill and restore. So, if Paul was a genuine Law abiding Pharisee, then he should not have any problem with Jesus and his followers and he was supposed to atleast stop harassing them, if not embracing Jesus’ message.

The main hurdle between Jesus and those who were after his life was the Jesus’ insistance on Divine Law. Jesus was demanding people to follow the Divine Law. Following Divine Law means rejecting Roman rule and it’s man-made law.

So once people are energised to follow the Divine Law, it is taken as declaration of war against the Roman Authority. Thus Jesus’ Message/mission was a matter of life and death for Romans.

Romans were looking a proper way to get rid of not just Jesus but the influnece of his Divine Message. They wanted to kill not just the Messenger but the Message as well. This job of get rid of Messenger and his Message was not an easy task, because Jesus was on the Right Path and besides he used to perform miracles, wonders and signs on top of that. It is highly likely that most people had great respect for Jesus. But on the other hand, people like Paul have been harrassing Jesus’ followers. You may ask then why the majority of Jesus’ followers and sympathisers were not in position to wage a clear war? Because Romans’ brutal punishments, such as killing people through most barbaric way-crucifixion- were known to them. Crucifixion was ‘the most wretched of deaths’. (Josephus,
Jewish War 7.203) And even the lip-service Jews too used to kill their own Prophets and there is evidence that they were involved in killing people through crucifixion, who oppose them/or have disgreement with them.

The real challenge for Romans was to kill the Messenger and his Message from one “goad” so that “snake” should die and goad should not be broken at the same time. To carry out this challenging job, Paul was the best candidate. His rhetoric, his expertise in Law as a pharisee and being a son of pharisees, his boldness of harrassing Jesus’ followers despite knowing that Jesus’ message was not against the Law, his deceptive methodology to “convert” people to ‘his’ version of Jesus, his disagreement with real disciples of Jesus, his influence over poor disciples of Jesus, his grip over the most books of the New Testament (more than half books are written by Paul)…the list goes on…all this proves that Paul was the best candidate to break the influence of Jesus and his actual Message just in order for Romans to maintain their power. No wonder why all those various Gospels were rejected and only those got the “approval” of Rome which did not pose a real threat to Roman authority.

Imagine, if Jesus’ mission was to merely recite “Hallaluyas” by sitting in a corner in a synagugue or in a church of his own like a monk, and completely discard himself from collective social life, and perform miracles. wonders and signs just to appease/amuse people for fun, and advice his fellow human beings not to revolt against tyrant Romans or Jewish anti-Divine Law power, by always following the philosophy of “turn the other cheak” then… do you think, those criminal Jews and Romans still would have tried to kill Jesus through crucifixion? Whether they did succeed in killing Jesus through crucifixion, is an another subject, but it is for sure that they did try to kill him.

 

[inJESUS]

what is your real issue with Paul? that he gave different teachings? what about Peter and Luke who knew what Paul was preaching and mentioned them in their writings? if Paul did not become a Christian then why was he persecuted and killed? if Paul did not meet Jesus then why would his life/teachings change completely and be in harmony with Jesus’ teachings in the 4 gospels? what exactly is your issue with Paul?

 

[cestusdei]

Muslims hate Paul. They believe he altered the message of Jesus. They have no proof of this. If he had then the other Apostles would have said so and kicked him out and condemned him. They like to pretend if it hadn’t been for Paul we would all be Muslims right now. They fail to realize the gospels alone are sufficient to refute the falsehoods of Muhammed.

 

[MrS]

cestusdei:

Muslims hate Paul. They believe he altered the message of Jesus. They have no proof of this. If he had then the other Apostles would have said so and kicked him out and condemned him. They like to pretend if it hadn’t been for Paul we would all be Muslims right now. They fail to realize the gospels alone are sufficient to refute the falsehoods of Muhammed.

My understanding is that muslims think we already are… we were all born Muslim… we just don’t know it yet. And they include Jesus as a Muslim too…

 

[cestusdei]

That’s right. So they sometimes demand that we not baptize our own children since that is forcing apostacy on them. They demand we raise them as Muslims even if we are not. Absurd? Yes, but that’s how they think. I asked one why then we couldn’t demand the same of their children here. His answer, “because Islam is right”, therefore whatever they do is right no matter how it might violate our own freedoms or how hypocritical it is.

 

[inJESUS]

Even if I assumed that Paul was indeed appointed by Jesus, it means nothing because what counts is what Paul actually did after his “appointment”.

to know if someone follows Jesus, you must see their lives…what did Paul do after his “appointment”?

Merely appointment by Jesus is not sufficiant to accept him as a true follower. You may ask: Why not? Think of Judas the traitor. He was appointed by Jesus in his life time alongwith other faithfull disciples. …

not only Judas, but Peter as well denied Him, and the rest flew away except John…Jesus assigning them does not mean they are gods, they are still human being with human weaknesses…only AFTER the resurrection did they understand completely who Jesus were.

Now as far Paul, as I said before, first, there are contradictory reports obout his so-called “vision”.

which are?

Second he used to persecute Jesus’ followers in the very life time of Jesus Christ. Third, all of Jesus’ miracles, wonders and signs did not impress him at all, let alone the beauty of Jesus’ Divine Message. Fourth, Paul himself was a Pharisee and son of Pharisees. Who could have known better than a Pharisee or Scribe, the importance of Divine Law and it’s observance in daily life for Eternal life/salvation?

so why did he change? there must have been a great reason.

Jesus is reported to have said that he came not abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill and restore.

fulfill , period.

So, if Paul was a genuine Law abiding Pharisee, then he should not have any problem with Jesus and his followers and he was supposed to atleast stop harassing them, if not embracing Jesus’ message.

oh no, Jesus claimed much more than that, thats why he was called blasphemer…to Paul, Jesus was not the Messiah, a reason enough to persecute his followers.

The main hurdle between Jesus and those who were after his life was the Jesus’ insistance on Divine Law. Jesus was demanding people to follow the Divine Law. Following Divine Law means rejecting Roman rule and it’s man-made law.

Jesus claimed much more than that…and read what he said : you were told, but i tell you…not to mention that he forgave sins, somethinng done only by God and to which Jews called him blasphemer.

So once people are energised to follow the Divine Law, it is taken as declaration of war against the Roman Authority. Thus Jesus’ Message/mission was a matter of life and death for Romans.

it was against the Jews themselves who knew that Jesus’ message is a danger cuz they feared Roman attacks.That is, they wanted the Messiah’s salvation agaisnt the Romans, which Jesus didn’t grant cuz He had an eternal spiritua salvation not a political one.
.

So what did Paul do against Christianity?

 

[inJESUS]

Muslims hate Paul. They believe he altered the message of Jesus.

i know…but what about the others who preached at the same time?? Peter, Paul, Luke and others met at the same time!

They fail to realize the gospels alone are sufficient to refute the falsehoods of Muhammed.

exactly, who said we rely on Paul alone? and nothing of what Paul is against Jesus’ teachings.

Paul used to kill, but after meeting his Lord, his life changed completely, he became a saint, he died a martyr.
Mohammad, on the other hand, used to be a fine person, but after meeting his spirit, hell broke loose and he started killing; this is the difference between Paul who met the true God and mohammad who met a strange spirit that the Bible defined as satan .

 

[freedomm]

inJESUS:

no he can’t…furthermore allah says he keeps his word…where has his word (including the Holy Bible) been for 3000 years? did he forget his promise or maybe he couldn’t fulfill it? Our God fulfills His promises and we believe Him cuz He is Truth…what about allah?

It is good to see that here you are making two grave mistakes.

And these grave mistakes that you are making here are actually **a case against your faith ** and if you stick to your so-called “logic”, then you are indirectly accepting the Holy Quran as the Word of Allah

You say “Allah says He keeps His Word”. It means what Allah says about keeping His Word, is useful or meaningfull to you in order to prove the authenticity of your version of the Bible as a/the word of God.

Now imagine, if Allah had not said that He will keep His Word. What you would have done then? How you will prove to Muslims that BIble is indeed a/the word of God?

Do you believe that Quran is the Word of Allah (The God)? IF not, then what makes you to use a certain verse of the Quran to make your case?

If you say: “well, though Quran is not the Word of God, but there are truths in it”, then question arises, how do you know which one is truth and which one is not? If whatever **you think ** is truth in the Quran, then are they atleast the Words of God, then? If you say: “The statement that **Allah will keep His Word ** is indeed from God”. Then, the Quran atleast contain this statament of God. Are you ready to accept that Quran does contain atleast some or one statement of God?

If not, then you cannot use the Quran to prove your case because your basic premise is flawed. But if you insist, then you are actually shooting in your own feet.

Your “logic” will not go against Muslim’s stance, because Muslims already believe in the principle that Allah did send revelations to the previous Prophets of God (PBUT), and their followers although did not preserve them in pure form, but not each and every word of them is lost.

But as far you faith is concerned, you don’t have such premise/principle, because you don’t beleive in any new Message or revelation from God after Jesus period.

You foolishly think that by using some verses or one verse of the Quran, out of context, you can fool Muslims. This is your grave mistake. Because you are actually making a case against yourself and not against the Muslims.

Let’s say if a most ignorant Muslim, somehow accepts your assumption that Allah did promise to keep the Bible; then what that ignorant Muslim will do? Is he going to accept your Bible also as a word of God? Let’s say he did. Then, is he going to reject the Quran then? No. Because it was the Quran in which he had faith as the Word of Allah, and it was it’s verse that you used and made him to believe in your Bible as a Word of God. If there was no such verse, he would not have believed in your Bible. So, in order to believe that Bible is indeed a word of God, he must believe in the Quran too as the Word of God. Now, you tell me what did you really acheived with your false/flawed reasoning, because that most ignorant Muslim still believes in the Quran?

Your real victory is when you make him reject his Quran completely. But to make him reject the Quran completely, you have to ignore Quran completely while reasoning with him and prove the authenticity of your Bible only based on your Bible but not on any external Islamic evidence in which you have no faith at all.

 

[inJESUS]

It is good to see that here you are making two grave mistakes

. mmm lets see.

And these grave mistakes that you are making here are actually **a case against your faith **

and if you stick to your so-called “logic”, then you are indirectly accepting the Holy Quran as the Word of Allah mmm lets see.

You say "Allah says He keeps His Word

". It means what Allah says about keeping His Word, is useful or meaningfull to you in order to prove the authenticity of your version of the Bible as a/the word of God. this point is theological ; i believe in a God who keeps His Word BECAUSE He wants His people to know the truth and live accordingly…

why do YOU say the quran is from God if it were written by men? how can you make sure these men did not change something? isnt it cuz allah said so? its a matter of faith in God who wants people to know the truth.

Now imagine, if Allah had not said that He will keep His Word. What you would have done then? How you will prove to Muslims that BIble is indeed a/the word of God?

the question applies to you as well…if God does not keep His word, why should the quran be an ecception? so allah does not keep his words and he cares less whether people know the truth or not…do you want such a deity? i doubt it.

Do you believe that Quran is the Word of Allah (The God)?

no.

IF not, then what makes you to use a certain verse of the Quran to make your case?

to prove my point from your point of view since you consider it the word of God.

If you say: “well, though Quran is not the Word of God, but there are truths in it”, then question arises, how do you know which one is truth and which one is not?

i never said that…am using it cuz YOU believe it…that is, am quoting what your book says…

If whatever **you think **

is truth in the Quran, then are they atleast the Words of God, then? If you say: “The statement that **Allah will keep His Word ** is indeed from God”. Then, the Quran atleast contain this statament of God. Are you ready to accept that Quran does contain atleast some or one statements of God? no…God is not half truth…either a prophet is from God or not.

If not, then you cannot use the Quran to prove your case because your basic premise is flawed. But if you insist, then you are actually shooting in your own feet.

wrong…my Bible says God keeps His Word…but since you believe it is corrupt, then am using your OWN book which says the same…am not proving the Bible is sound from quran, but am proving to you that YOUR book says allah keeps his word…do you agree that God keeps His word for the benefit of His children?

Your “logic” will not go against Muslim’s stance, because Muslims already believe in the principle that Allah did

send revelations to the previous Prophets of God (PBUT), and their followers although did not preserve them in pure form, but not each and every word of them is lost. so allah failed to fulfill his promise? why?

You foolishly think that by using some verses or one verse of the Quran, out of context, you can fool Muslims. This is your grave mistake. Because you are actually making a case against yourself and not against the Muslims.

am not fooling anyone…i believe in God who keeps his Word…and the quran says the same thing…thatallah preserves all scriptures.

 

[inJESUS]

cont…

Let’s say if a most ignorant Muslim, somehow accepts your assumption that Allah did promise to keep the Bible; then what that ignorant Muslim will do? Is he going to accept your Bible also as a word of God? Let’s say he did. Then, is he going to reject the Quran then? No. Because it was the Quran in which he had faith as the Word of Allah, and it was it’s verse that you used and made him to believe in your Bible as a Word of God

thats not my problem…either God keeps His Word or not…the quran says so. Either God kept His Word for thousands of years or he failed to…God cannot fail.

If there was no such verse, he would not have believed in your Bible.

if there was no such verse, he shouldnt believe in quran as well coz allah is not omnipotent over his message…

So in order to believe that Bible is indeed a word of God, he must believe in the Quran too as the Word of God.

when he understands from quran that allah keeps His Word, he should know that the Bible is truth and he should wonder how come God’s teachings became so different all of a sudden…either God or Allah is true. Since the Bible came thousands of years before mohammad and since God keeps His Word, then mohammad is lying coz his teachings are considered shameful &sinful to the Biblical God. Does God’s morality change ?

Now you tell me what did you really acheived with your false/flawed reasoning, because that most ignorant Muslim still believes in the Quran?

my question is simple: since God preserves His word as he said, how come he failed according to you? either God is always truth, for thousands of years, or not…coz if God failed for 3000 years, why should you still believe him or that he preserved the quran?

Your real victory is when you make him reject his Quran completley. but to make him reject the Quran completely, you have to ignore Quran completely while reasoning with him and prove the authenticity of your Bible only based on your Bible and not on any external Islamic evedence in which you have no faith at all.

when he understands that God is the God of truth, that God cares for His people and wants them all with Him , if he believes that God is omnipotent , then God couldnt fail for 3000 years. Only then, will he investigate the Bible history, the thousands of manuscripts, archeological findings, early writings, prophecies ecc and come to the conclusion that the Bible is from God’ who promised to keep His word and covenant with his people…if the Bible is not God’s word then there is no god cuz either God keeps His word cuz he is omnipotent or he doesnt coz he is not omnipotent hence no God.

 

[LilyM]

freedomm:

It is good to see that here you are making two grave mistakes.

And these grave mistakes that you are making here are actually **a case against your faith ** and if you stick to your so-called “logic”, then you are indirectly accepting the Holy Quran as the Word of Allah

You say “Allah says He keeps His Word”. It means what Allah says about keeping His Word, is useful or meaningfull to you in order to prove the authenticity of your version of the Bible as a/the word of God.

Now imagine, if Allah had not said that He will keep His Word. What you would have done then? How you will prove to Muslims that BIble is indeed a/the word of God?

Do you believe that Quran is the Word of Allah (The God)? IF not, then what makes you to use a certain verse of the Quran to make your case?

If you say: “well, though Quran is not the Word of God, but there are truths in it”, then question arises, how do you know which one is truth and which one is not? If whatever **you think ** is truth in the Quran, then are they atleast the Words of God, then? If you say: “The statement that **Allah will keep His Word ** is indeed from God”. Then, the Quran atleast contain this statament of God. Are you ready to accept that Quran does contain atleast some or one statement of God?

If not, then you cannot use the Quran to prove your case because your basic premise is flawed. But if you insist, then you are actually shooting in your own feet.

Your “logic” will not go against Muslim’s stance, because Muslims already believe in the principle that Allah did send revelations to the previous Prophets of God (PBUT), and their followers although did not preserve them in pure form, but not each and every word of them is lost.

But as far you faith is concerned, you don’t have such premise/principle, because you don’t beleive in any new Message or revelation from God after Jesus period.

You foolishly think that by using some verses or one verse of the Quran, out of context, you can fool Muslims. This is your grave mistake. Because you are actually making a case against yourself and not against the Muslims.

Let’s say if a most ignorant Muslim, somehow accepts your assumption that Allah did promise to keep the Bible; then what that ignorant Muslim will do? Is he going to accept your Bible also as a word of God? Let’s say he did. Then, is he going to reject the Quran then? No. Because it was the Quran in which he had faith as the Word of Allah, and it was it’s verse that you used and made him to believe in your Bible as a Word of God. If there was no such verse, he would not have believed in your Bible. So, in order to believe that Bible is indeed a word of God, he must believe in the Quran too as the Word of God. Now, you tell me what did you really acheived with your false/flawed reasoning, because that most ignorant Muslim still believes in the Quran?

Your real victory is when you make him reject his Quran completely. But to make him reject the Quran completely, you have to ignore Quran completely while reasoning with him and prove the authenticity of your Bible only based on your Bible but not on any external Islamic evidence in which you have no faith at all.

There is no ‘shooting ourselves in the foot’ - it is not a prerequisite of being Christian that we have to believe the Bible is literally word-for-word directly from the mouth of God. If we did we’d follow all the Old Testament dietary and other laws and have our Sabbath on Saturday as the Jews did. We believe in the Bible (or at least the New Testament) as ONE OF the foundations of our faith, and use the Bible in our arguments about correct religious doctrine just as YOU have used it in your arguments AGAINST what we believe - but it’s only one of our tools. See YOU are the ones who believe in following all the requirements of the supposed old religions (as you understand and have perverted them to fit the Islamic agenda) as well as your own. We are freed from that requirement.

Not to mention that you again and again have been quoting ‘inconsistencies’ in our Bible to try to make us believe it can’t be true - why can’t the same be done with the Quran? Oh, I forgot - the Quran has to be literally and word-for-word true. Otherwise your religious “scholars” who have “devoted” (wasted more like) their lives to memorising it (as opposed to actually THINKING about what it says) would be out of a job. Seriously, why don’t you guys just train a bunch of parrots to speak the words of the Quran and preserve its words that way - it’d be a far better use of your scholarly resources.

 

[freedomm]

cestusdei:

Muslims hate Paul. They believe he altered the message of Jesus. They have no proof of this. **If he had then the other Apostles would have said so and kicked him out and condemned him. ** They like to pretend if it hadn’t been for Paul we would all be Muslims right now. They fail to realize the gospels alone are sufficient to refute the falsehoods of Muhammed.

You are wrong in saying that “**If he [Paul] had [altered the message of Jesus] then the other Apostles would have said so and kicked him out and condemned him. **” Because Jesus’ apostles were not influential nor they had enough power to stop Paul. They could not even save the life of their Most beloved Messiah, let alone kicking Paul or condemning him. Paul was a strong man and has links with the Romans as such he was persecuting Jesus’ followers without any problem during Jesus life time.
When the Master of apostles was “hunged” they all left him alone and fled away. (Mark 14:50 Then his disciples leaving him, all fled away.)

After Jesus’ ascension (because Jesus actually did not die on the corss, because there is no authentic eyewitness to the “crucifixion” from Jesus’ disciples…and reports that gathered later was based on heresay), the remaining task for Romans and those anti-Jesus, criminal Jews, was to make Jesus’ so-called “death” lawfull and to 'nail the Divine Law to the cross" by hook or by crook. Paul’s so-called “vision” is a pretext and it is a creation of his own mind in order to embark on the remaining task of 'nailing the Law to the cross". It is the same Law that Jesus came to restore and demanded people to follow. It is the Law that was a death sentance to Roman Authority.

So, “nailing the Law to the corss” and freeing people from the bondage of Law, was not an easy task. It required a deceptive and devilish personality such as of Paul. This job was well done by Paul. No wonder if peopele believe that it is Paul who is the actual founder of existing Christianity and not Jesus.

For whereas I [Paul] was free as to all, I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more. And I became to the Jews, a Jew, that I might gain the Jews: To them that are under the law, as if I were under the law, (whereas myself was not under the law,) that I might gain them that were under the law. To them that were without the law, as if I were without the law, (whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that were without the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all. And I do all things for the gospel’s sake: that I may be made partaker thereof.
----(1 Corinthians 9: 19-23)

It is also possible that Paul was set up by the Romans. Paul’s “vision” is a pretext to embrak on the remaining task of “nailing the Law to the Corss” because the Master was gone. But Jesus disciples were not sure about his death. Paul declared “if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” It means Jesus must die in order to raise and make faith meaningfull. He was teaching something new and amazing. And he has to do this in order to derail the whole mission of Jesus.

The mission of all Prophets of God (PBUT) was to bring people under the Sovereignty of God by demanding from people to observe His Divine Law. It is this Law that bring real peace and tranquility on earth. All man-made Laws are deficient and cannot give Eternal life. Keeping the Laws and Commandments of God is the key to Salvation. But Paul’s mission was exactly opposite. His mission was to make people forget the law and focus on Jesus’ death as a necessary notion to salvation and live happily under Romans by not insisting too much on the observance of the Law.

 

[freedomm]

LilyM:

There is no ‘shooting ourselves in the foot’ - it is not a prerequisite of being Christian that we have to believe the Bible is literally word-for-word directly from the mouth of God. If we did we’d follow all the Old Testament dietary and other laws and have our Sabbath on Saturday as the Jews did. We believe in the Bible (or at least the New Testament) as ONE OF the foundations of our faith, and use the Bible in our arguments about correct religious doctrine just as YOU have used it in your arguments AGAINST what we believe - but it’s only one of our tools. .

You are actually following an early persecutor of Jesus followers, a staunch enemy of Jesus’ message whose name is Saul (Paul) and not Jesus.

It is Paul who is the actual founder of your existing Chrstianity and not Jesus.

Had you listen and followed Jesus, by now you would have been following Islam (Islam means surrendering your will to the Will of God in order to acheive peace).

 

[freedomm]

The following are qoutes from The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception by:Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh

**[Robert] Eisenman suggests that James may have been aware of the true situation and that Paul may well have been ‘set up’. Had he refused the ritual of purification, he would have declared himself openly in defience of the Law. By acceding to the ritual, he became, even more than before, the ‘Liar’ of the ‘Habakkuk Commnetry’. Whatever the course of action he chose, he would have damned himself - which may have been precisely what James intended. (2)
In any case, and despite his exculpatory self-purification, Paul continues to inspire enmity in those ‘zealous for the Law’ - who, a few days later, attack him in the Temple. ‘This’, they proclaim, ‘is the man who preaches to everyone everywhere . . . . against the Law’ (Acts 21:28). The ensuing riot is no minor disturbance:

This roused the whole city: people came running from all sides; they seized Paul and dragged him out pof the Temple, and the gates were closed behind them. They would have killed him if a report had not reached the tribune of the cohort that there was rioting all over Jerusalem. (Acts 21:30-31)

The cohort is called out - no fewer than six hundred men - and Paul, in the nick of time, is rescued, presumably to prevent civil upheaval on an even greater scale. Why else would the cohort bother to save the life of one heterodox Jew who’d incurred the wrath of his fellows?

The sheer scale of the tumult attests to the kind of currency, influence and power the so-called ‘early Church’ must have excercised in Jerusalem at the time - among Jews !

Clearly, we are dealing with a movement within Judaism itself, which commands loyalty from much of the city’s populace
Having rescued him from the incensed mob, the Romans arrest Paul - who, before he is marched off to prison, asks permission to make a self-exonerating speech. Inexplicably, the Romans acquiesce to his request, even though the speech serves only to further infalme the mob.

Paul is then carried off for torture and interrogation. As was asked previously, interrogation about what? Why torture and interrogate a man who has offended his co-religionists on fine points of orthodoxy and ritual observance? There is only one explanation for the Romans taking such interest - that Paul is suspected of being privy to information of a political and/ or miliatry nature.**​

The only serious political and/ or miliatry adversaries confronting the Romans were the adherents of the nationalistic movement - the ‘Zealots’ of popular tradition. And Paul, the evangelist of the ‘early Church’, was under threat from those ‘zealous for the Law’ -forty or more of them in number - who were plotting to kill him, vowing not to eat or drink until they had done so. Saved from this fate by his hitherto unmentioned nephew, he is bundled, under escort, out of Jerusalem to Caesarea, where he invokes his right as a Roman citizen to make a personal appeal to the emperor. While in Caesarea, he hobnobs in congenial and intimate fashion with the Roman procurator, Antonius Felix. Eisenman has emphasised that he is also intimate with the procurator’s brother-in-law, Herod agrippa II, and with the king’s sister - later the mistress of Titus. the Roman commander who will destroy Jerusalem and eventually becaome emperor. . (3)

(2) Eisenman to authors of The Dead Sea Scrolls, 24 August 1990

(3) Eisenman, James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher, p.16, n.39; p.59, n.39.

 

[LilyM]

freedomm:

You are actually following an early persecutor of Jesus followers, a staunch enemy of Jesus’ message whose name is Saul (Paul) and not Jesus.

It is Paul who is the actual founder of your existing Chrstianity and not Jesus.

Had you listen and followed Jesus, by now you would have been following Islam (Islam means surrendering your will to the Will of God in order to acheive peace).

Saying that we follow Paul is ridiculous - if you said we follow Peter AND all the Gospel writers AND all the Apostles AS WELL AS Paul - AND Jesus before all of them - you’d be closer to the truth.

Of course we don’t follow Paul - it’s like saying that you follow your mosque’s leaders. Or your Sunni/Shia/Wahhabi/Sufi leaders depending on what denomination of Islam you follow. Or that you follow Mohammed’s relatives to whom he allegedly taught the Koran, since they are the ones who did the actual writing and he wrote nothing. Or even that you follow the Caliph who possibly destroyed rival versions of the Koran as other posters describe. Clearly you don’t, or if you do it’s only in as far as they explain and clarify the teachings of Mohammed and/or Allah to you.

There is absolutely no reason to trust Islam’s version of Jesus’ sayings and doings in preference to those of Christianity, pure and simple.

 

[George_Waters]

Man, I go out of town for two days and look what happens?!

freedomm, what part of **“I would kindly ask that anyone who wishes to post on this thread, and I encourage everyone to do so, to please keep the question firmly in mind and to please help this thread stay on track.” ** don’t you understand???

**inJesus’ signature does not have one thing to do with this thread! If you cannot follow the etiquette I ask of for this thread kindly do not post! **

I understand that our little friends charges must be answered so if everyone would like to continue with this discussion please feel free.

I will begin a new thread soon to ask my questions of Muslims. Thank you gurrato alain and jcaz for answering my first question your courtsey is greatly appreciated!

 

[LilyM]

Freedomm - how could Paul persuade Christians to ‘live happily under the Romans’ when for THREE HUNDRED YEARS those Romans were persecuting and killing Christians for their denial of the Roman Emperor’s divinity (which was a required belief under Roman law)?

The only reason the persecutions stopped was because it was the ROMAN EMPIRE that succumbed to the power of Christianity and made Christianity the state religion. The Christians never came close to submitting to the Romans - or the Jewish authorities for that matter.

And Paul himself had been one of those persecutors. He must have known that Christians were not going to give up their beliefs and submit to Roman or Jewish authority even if he told them to, because as a persecutor he HAD been telling them to!

PAUL HIMSELF was killed as a Christian - by beheading in Rome in the 60s CE - show me any evidence to contradict the Christian accounts of his death. On the contrary even apocryphal writings such as the ‘Acts of Paul and Thecla’ agree that he died as a Christian martyr.

All I can say is that if Paul was a Roman spy or agitator he failed miserably in his mission.

 

[freedomm]

Dear inJESUS,
May be you should open a new thread titled “The Problem of Paul” or “Who is the Founder of today’s Christianity–Paul or Jesus?”

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

As this thread is far off topic, it is now closed. Please consider taking this discussion to a new thread- or a current thread already on this topic.

Thanks, and God Bless-

Rachel