aa5874

There are people here who are claiming that the author of Acts humiliated Paul but it will be shown that it was Peter the supposed apostle of Jesus that was Publicly and Privately humiliated by Jesus, Paul, the author of Acts and the very Church of Rome and its writers.

Examine the supposed words of gMatthew's Jesus to Peter.

Matthew 16:23 KJV gMatthew's Jesus likened Peter to Satan.

And it gets far worse, Peter based on gMatthew will NOT go to heaven.

Matthew 10:33 KJV Peter would supposedly DENY Jesus before Men, NOT once but Three times in gMatthew.

Examine some of the the LAST words of Peter [Satan] in gMatthew.

Matthew 26 The Apostle called Peter is completely humiliated by the Jesus of gMatthew and is referred to as Satan and that Peter who denied him before men will be DENIED by him in the presence of his Father in heaven.

Duvduv

How does conventional Christian apologetics deal with this matter?!
And speaking of the apostles, how is it possible that there doesn't exist any stories, apocryphal or other "gospels" that try to integrate Paul somehow into the life story of the Jesus figure? After all, Paul was about the same age as Jesus, he spent time in Jerusalem and conceivably other places in the Holy Land. Surely the conventional storyline could place Paul as another apostle, even if it was rejected in the canonical gospels.

Alternatively Paul simply represents the concept of there being an APOSTLE who specifically did not know the historical Christ, thereby providing Christianity with the element of the non-historical Jesus. Why this would be necessary is unclear to me personally. What difference would it have made in practical terms for the believers had ALL apostles seen and witnessed BOTH the physical Christ and the risen Christ? However, it seems that an APOSTLE, by definition someone expressing the "truth" of the Christ but who didn't know the physical Jesus figure was necessary in the religion.

aa5874

Well, we really don't have any non-apologetic records of Saul/Paul. The character called Paul or Saul was an invented character so his age is irrelevant.


The Earliest Jesus stories suggest that Paul was NOT known when they were composed.

Duvduv

OK, meaning that when he did become known it didn't occur to any creative soul to write a gospel that includes him as well as an apostle who knew the Christ. After all, what practical difference could or would it have made in the scheme of things UNLESS for some reason it was NECESSARY to include this one "apostle" - or rather EXCLUDE this one apostle - in order to present the notion of an APOSTLE of the Christ who did not see him physically. But the question is then: WHY was this necessary?

Is it because there were at least two DIFFERENT doctrines about the Christ, and the one of this Paul apostle had to be preserved in Byzantium?

But how does CONVENTIONAL Christianity address the issue of the EXPLICIT put-down of Peter who was the "Rock" of the Church???

Chili

That simply means that the very faith that bore the Lamb of God must be denied as the cross to die on and the cardinal virues have to do this as Son of Man first.

He is Mephis and not a she.

Let me edit to elaborate the concept, (just a concept for you to ponder) wherein the lamb of God is born from religion as the 'mother' and so from the 'motherland' of man called Nazareth, while here in Mathew the son of man is not lamb of religion and hence not from Nazareth but 'out of Egypt' and hence Mephis is the male in dominance as Fatherland in religion = like Fundamentalist Jew, if you like, or persitent without the halleluia's sung by Zecharaih, if you like that better . . . and is the fundamental relationship sought in a 'male dominant society' wherein not oppression is sought but elevation of the woman as 'womb of man' in riches by way of 'incarnate virtue' that poise the Cardinal Virtues opposite the Capital Sins so that religion can first create the 'soft clay' be come the very cross to die on.

And of course the dramatic suffering presented in the story is for us to relate to in empathy and so to make us 'worthy' and later crown Mephis as the She. So it is a relationsip matter in the end wherein the human heart is poised agaist the faculty of reason like the Titanic and the Iceberg wherein twin halves that were poised against each other as twain to join two hemispheres by way of collision instead reason in Matthew, which then a why the Magi went to Herod to find Joseph and the rest is history.

http://www.melodylane.net/ianwhitcomb/twainpoem.html

aa5874

I have just shown that gMatthew's Jesus Demonized Peter and called him Satan now we will see that Paul accused Peter of being a Hypocrite and Humiliated Peter in the presence of other disciples.

Galatians 2 In the Pauline writings, Paul accused Peter of NOT living according to the Truth of the Gospel.

Both the supposed Jesus and Paul humiliated Peter.

Toto

"Conventional" Christianity is all about sin and forgiveness and mysteries. Nothing that is written in the Bible could possibly be wrong, so there is always a way of interpreting it.

Scholarship has other answers.

Chili

Faith is the most deeply entrenched slavery and the biggest enemy of liberation Gal.5-1-4 here.
So a deep faith belongs to the woman at home while he drinks beer in the bar right next to the Church.

Doug Shaver

By reading past aa's proof texts.

aa5874

So far, we see that Jesus likened Peter unto Satan and that Peter will be DENIED by Jesus in the Presence of God because Peter Denied him Before in gMatthew and Paul claimed Peter was NOT living according to the Truth of the Gospel in Galatians 2.

Now, in "Church History" attributed to Eusebius it will be claimed that of the 2 Epistles of Peter the second one does NOT belong in the Canon.

Church History 3.2.3So since the 4th century, the Church ADMITTED that their Canon did have an Epistle of Peter that was NOT authentic and did NOT belong to the Canon.

Jesus, Paul and the Church humiliated Peter.

Examine "Church History 3 The Church claimed ALL FOURTEEN Epistles of Paul were genuine and undisputed except for Hebrews but Peter only had ONE genuine Epistle.