The First Corrupter Of The Doctrines of Jesus - Paul vs The True Church - Part 1
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 02. 2024
- All 3 Videos in this series are here: • Paul Vs The Real Church
Make sure to check out these videos also:
Does Peter Certify Paul as an Apostle? • Does Peter "Certify" P...
Why Do Christians Hate Jesus' Words? • Why Do Christians Hate...
Taking Scripture "Out of Context"? • Taking Scripture Out O...
Have We Missed the Gospel Because Of One Word? • Have We Missed The Tru...
The Truth About What Jesus Taught About The Law: • The Truth About What J...
What has the Church hidden from you? Do you know the Truth or just what you have been told? Do you want the rest of the story? Can you handle it? Was Yeshua (Jesus) a Christian? Was He a Pharisaical Jew who died for our sins? Or was He teaching something radical and different than mainstream Judaism of his day taught, something different than Mainstream Christianity today? Something that got Him killed and His message hidden after His ascension? Is the Truth still out there, buried in long-forgotten books and vague historical references by the very men that wiped out the original faith and message once delivered to the saints? I invite you to join me as I search out the original Faith of the Yeshua and the 12 Apostles.
Follow me on Gab TV and Odysee also:
tv.gab.com/channel/davidbradford
odysee.com/@DavidHNotsari:0
The churches have pastors who have been trained to overlook Paul’s doublespeak and glaring hypocrisy, just to support the “narrative”.
In the gospels, Jesus condemns swearing by things. Either swearing by God, the earth, or a hair on your head. Methinks Paul doth protest too much.
I woke this morning and had a thought so I’ll pass it on. It was: Eve is like the bride of Christ. Jesus is the 2nd Adam. Eve didn’t hear directly from god, Adam did. Eve was deceived when the serpent questioned, did god really say? She didn’t ask her husband Adam (Jesus in the future) what did god say. So is the church by listening to Paul repeating eve’s sin? They aren’t listening to the words of God through Jesus’s mouth.
Very insightful, excellent analogy.
Can I email you this document I been working on with Paul’s words and Jesus words next to each other on 9 different topics?
I am with you Bro!
David have you heard that it's very possible that Steven's death is actually James but Luke couldn't put that in a legal document
@listenandobey8127 Yeah, I've talked about that on here before. I think there is something to it, but James wasn't killed until after Paul's trial, so I don't think it was actually James.
In his Epistle James said to Paul:
James 5:6 "You have condemned, you have murdered the righteous one. He doesn’t resist you."
I think James knew Paul would be involved in his death, but he wasn't actually killed until right before Jerusalem was destroyed.
@@DavidHNotsari supposedly it was James's death that set off the destruction of Jerusalem.
I did not find you on Face Book?
The probability would show him as a descendant of Cain, the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree !
The first shall be last and the last shall be first !@@Dan-ri1us
Christ didn't come for just everyone - he specifically came to turn the judeans from their wicked ways back to the path of righteousness. Most of what Jesus teaches aligns with Vedic teaching which is what the Magi were and where they held the prophecy of not only Christ coming, but when and how. Christ himself was described by the Romans as standing out starkly from the judeans swarthy skin and dark beards in that he was fair of skin and golden haired.
As for Paul, he was a Pharisee. In order to be one, you had to be married so Paul was divorced later, likely due to some shame. He would have been bitterly ostrosized from his social class and looking for anyone he could con and gain sway over.
In "James the Brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman uses the non-canonical works of historians of the time in addition to just Paul and Acts, and he places much less esteem on Act than you do; rule of thumb, when there is difference between Paul and Acts assume Acts is wrong. I still think Paul is a fraud but he has more credibility than Acts.
Prof Eisenman said that because he was looking at Paul's letters as a first-hand witness, whereas Acts was or 2nd or 3rd hand (depending on which part of Acts you were looking at).
Given the new information from John Mauck's book, that Acts was a part of Paul's legal defense, and the penalties for falsifying such a document under Roman Law, I have come to the conclusion that Acts is more trustworthy. I don't think I mentioned this in the video, but in the first century a "physician" didn't necessarily mean a doctor, you could also be a physician of law, and that may have been what Luke was.
So, if Luke was Paul's attorney he would have been consulting with his client as he wrote Acts, and that brings it to the status of being a first-hand witness, just like Paul's letters, but unlike Paul's letters the book of Acts would have carried severe penalties for any falsehoods inserted in it.
Also, John Mauck is a huge fan of Paul. When he talked about Paul it was like reading a love letter about a personal hero of his, so it's not something that a Paulinist could dismiss as being an attack on Paul.
Peter confirms Paul, Luke confirms them both. You fail to the see the mystery. Learn to rightly divide the word of truth. There's clear distinctions for a reason.
@timc6427 Jesus, not Luke, confirms Peter. Luke has no authority to confirm Peter or anyone else.
Peter does not certify Paul as an apostle or even a pastor, he called him a brother and warned that his teachings lead to destruction. czcams.com/video/5GobYh6Px08/video.html
What you call a "mystery" is the same bogus doctrine taught in 99% of the Pauline churches, there is no "mystery" if almost everyone believes it. The only reason they call it a "mystery" is because it is a bunch of nonsense and you have to reject 90% of the Bible to believe it. Quit rejecting the Scriptures and believe the tons of evidence God gave us to recognize Paul as being the wolf in sheep's clothing that he is.
lol
“mystery.”
you gnostics love your mystery doctrines, don’t you!?
let me guess, your “god” is a “mysterious” three-headed monster, too?
i don’t buy the legal defense idea for at least three reasons i think are reasonable:
1-it was already a persecuted religion, as we see in the earliest chapters of acts. and they remained persecuted despite any favorable ruling. remember, nero is the one who famously played a fiddle while rome burned, and he blamed it on the christians. so who cares if paul wins the case? not nero.
2-paul was teaching a different religion. why try to button that up? that’s deceitful. why not send a delegate to the court and explain the nuances? the alternative was to compromise and lie and hide the fact that he was, indeed, a sectarian with a different religion? hogwash.
3-anyone reading acts should be able to see that paul falsifies the reasons he’s even being investigated and tried. he wasn’t arrested because he affirmed the resurrection. he was arrested for being a rabble rouser. his testimonies don’t line up.
some “legal brief.”
acts is a who, what, when, where document of the early movement. nothing more. nothing less.
it’s not intended for doctrine, but i’m also doubtful that its intended use was to get antichrist an acquittal.
all paul would had to have done was recite the garbage he’d written in romans 13 and be the herodian, roman agent boot licker he was.
Paul is being used by Jesus to to test our discernment…. When you see the truth , Jesus warned us very clearly about Paul. Paul is a deceiver… but I truly believe that in the end he was changed . Jmo
I’m not sure if I still believe that Paul changed.