What equipment do the servants of God and Christ need?

Jesus merely wished that his followers would remember him when they ate and drank. Paul turned it into a pagan, blasphemous ritual, whether Jesus flesh and blood are symbolic or not.

Jesus, and his partner, John the Baptizer, taught salvation through repentance. Paul dismisses those when he tells his followers that they don't have to be good, they only have to have faith. Under Paul, Jesus death was a human sacrifice. But no one's death can change your heart. Repentance IS the only path to salvation.

Paul was despised by the Jerusalem Church lead by Jesus' brother James for how he was twisting what Jesus, an ultra-observant Jew, had taught. That's why they tried to kill him, but he was saved by the Roman citizenship he'd purchased with funds he'd skimmed from what he'd collected for their church.

Under Hebrew gematria (numerical code), six hundred threescore and six (not the arabic 666 which didn't exist at that time) stands for Tarsus. The author of Revelation, a likely member of that early Jerusalem Church, knew that and stamped Paul with it. Paul, the "Spouter of Lies" in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

This (and a lot more), are ignored only by the need to maintain a blind faith. Christianity should rightly be called Paulism.

No, Paul didn't turn it into that, that didn't happen until well after he died. Don't forget Jesus told the disciples round the table to "do this in rememberance of me".

From Wikipedia.

"Early Christian sources
The Didache (Greek: teaching) is an early Church treatise that includes instructions for Baptism and the Eucharist. Most scholars date it to the early 2nd century,[18] and distinguish in it two separate Eucharistic traditions, the earlier tradition in chapter 10 and the later one preceding it in chapter 9.[19][20] The Eucharist is mentioned again in chapter 14.[21]

Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35 or 50-between 98 and 117), one of the Apostolic Fathers,[22] mentions the Eucharist as "the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ",[23] and Justin Martyr speaks of it as more than a meal: "the food over which the prayer of thanksgiving, the word received from Christ, has been said ... is the flesh and blood of this Jesus who became flesh ... and the deacons carry some to those who are absent."[24]"

There is no mention of Paul at all in the history of the Eucharist, as he was long dead by then. When Paul talks of the blood of jesus Christ in terms of the celebration of Christ's Last Supper, he is using the same symbolic terminology that Christ did.



John the Baptiser was not Jesus partner, he was Jesus cousin ,ad the one sent, as he himself said, to prepare the way for baptism and repentance. At no point did Paul deny the need for repentance, something he made very clear at scriptures such as:-

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with men,
1 Corinthians 6:10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. (NKJV)


This makes very clear that Paul was teaching that repentacne and change of lifestyle to demonstrate that were an essential part of salvation.




Yes Paul was despised by somke Jewish converts, but why? was it because he was teaching something other than what the Christ taught? No of course it wasn't. They despised him because he refused to listen when they tried to insist that circumcision was a necessary rite for all convert from the nations. Paul stuck to what Jesus taught and refused to agree:-

Romans 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written.
Romans 2:25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.
Romans 2:26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?
Romans 2:27 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:
Romans 2:29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Paul here was arguing that it is "circumcision of the heart which counts, in other words "the secret person of the heart" had to be purified not the flesh. His continual reference to Jews in this section goes back to his statement that quite rightly the Christian congregation was in fact a "New Israel" replacing the unfaithful Israel that had rejected Christ. Don't forget also that Christ was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, and died as Jew. His whole ministry was aimed at bringing first the Jews back into faithful worship of his Father, but later when all that could be gathered from the Jews the nations. none of this argues in the least with Jesus teachings. It is an argument which has been brought in partly through a spirit of anti-Semitism fostered by the early Apostate Church, and partly because Paul was then most vociferous supporter of Christ and his teachings. Paul was brought into the Congregations directly by the glorified Jesus mainly for the ministry to the Gentiles, whereas Matthew, for instance ministered mainly to the Jews which is why Matthew's Gospel was originally written in Hebrew. Since a large part of Pauls ministry, and two of his imprisonments were in Rome, he had a lot of contact with Roman Jews and Converts.

From a bible encyclopedia:-

"An Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin and an apostle of Jesus Christ. (Eph 1:1; Php 3:5) Though perhaps having both the Hebrew name Saul and the Roman name Paul from childhood (Ac 9:17; 2Pe 3:15), this apostle may have chosen to go by his Roman name in view of his commission to declare the good news to the non-Jews.—Ac 9:15; Ga 2:7, 8.
Paul was born in Tarsus, a prominent city of Cilicia. (Ac 21:39; 22:3) His parents were Hebrews and evidently adhered to the Pharisaic branch of Judaism. (Ac 23:6; Php 3:5) He was a Roman citizen from birth (Ac 22:28), his father having perhaps been granted citizenship for services rendered. Paul probably learned the trade of tentmaker from his father. (Ac 18:3) But, at Jerusalem, he received instruction from the learned Pharisee Gamaliel, suggesting that Paul was from a prominent family. (Ac 22:3; 5:34) Languagewise, Paul was versed at least in Greek and Hebrew. (Ac 21:37-40) At the time that Paul traveled as a missionary, he was unmarried. (1Co 7 During this general period, if not already earlier, he had a sister and a nephew who resided in Jerusalem.—Ac 23:16-22."


As for Paul's Roman citizenship, he was actually a Roman Citizen long before he became a part of the Christian Congregation, and in fact the collection that was made and accepted by Paul went to other, poorer congregations to bring about the equalisation he recommended.

2 Corinthians 8:10 And herein I give [my] judgment: for this is expedient for you, who were the
first to make a beginning a year ago, not only to do, but also to will.
2 Corinthians 8:11 But now complete the doing also; that as [there was] the readiness to will, so [there may be] the completion also out of your ability.
2 Corinthians 8:12 For if the readiness is there, [it is] acceptable according as [a man] hath, not according as [he] hath not.
2 Corinthians 8:13 For [I say] not [this] that others may be eased [and] ye distressed;
2 Corinthians 8:14 but by equality: your abundance [being a supply] at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become [a supply] for your want; that there may be equality:
2 Corinthians 8:15 as it is written, He that [gathered] much had nothing over; and he that [gathered] little had no lack.




It may mean that under the Hebrew Gamatria, but in fact in biblical terms the number 666 is typical prophetic language. Whatever it represents in Hebrew is irrelevant as Revelation was written in Greek.

In biblical terms 12 represents heavenly completeness, 7 represents perfection, and 6 being one short of perfection represents imperfection or sin. Any of those numbers repeated follows the biblical principle of "three times for emphasis". That therefore means that 666 is the ultimate in imperfection. It certainly doesn't apply to Paul.

I am afraid that all that you have said shows that you have spent too much time accepting the word of those who should, and probably do, know better but have a point to prove. The only point I have to prove is the truth of what the bible teaches.

Then where did 1Cor 11:23 come from?
"And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
"After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me."

And btw, if Jesus had instituted it, why was Paul having to receive the vision from Jesus and tell the Corinthians about his revelation?



And partner. Jesus worked the north end of the Jordan R. and John worked the south en.




As was Jesus, which was my point.




That's hokum. A pharisee wouldn't have been a tentmaker, much less a thug persecuting the Christians at the High Priest's bidding.



He was also, at least, collecting it for Jerusalem. Who knows, he probably skimmed it from both. And I think he claims to have be a Roman citizen by birth. But he was bound and whipped on previous occasions. Why didn't he declare his citizenship then????




It was taken from two places in the OT (Kings and Chron), the same exact number and wording, for the number of the talents of gold that came to Solomon's temple. The number is nowhere else in the Bible. "Let him who has wisdom understand".

Check the Ebionite link I provided.

Everything Paul was taught about Christianity came from Jesus eother directly on the road to Damascus, or indirectly when he was taught by the Apostles after. At no point does Paul mention it came to him in a vision, in fact he made no mention of how he received it so any thought of how can only be speculation.


As for Jesus instigating it:-

Luke 22:17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
Luke 22:18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke 22:20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you.

The only disagreement about that is generally whether Jesus meant it to be an annual remembrance or, as some believe at least a weekly one.

Yes but at no point was he Jesus partner in fact his work was purely baptising and pointing people to Jesus, he even remarked himself that Jesus must go on increasing while he decreased, he knew his work was almost done.

John wasn't a perfect human as Jesus was either.

And my point was that Paul and Jesus taught the same, which makes him far from an Anti-Christ.

For one thing I never said that he was a tent maker as such, though the bible does point out that he supported himself in the ministry by making tents. As for his citizenship I have no idea why he didn't claim it on other occasions but I don't doubt he had his reasons. He was imprisoned later as well, and didn't claim it then. Maybe the one time he did he was in fear of his life.

Incidentally Paul was never a Pharisee, though he did receive a lot of instruction from Gamaliel, who was a prominent Pharisee, but all that indicates was that Paul came from a very privileged background. Gamaliel, incidentally, was the one wise Pharisee who had the sense to tell the council to refrain from putting Peter and other Apostles to death when he said Acts 5:38,39 "And so, under the present circumstances, I say to YOU, Do not meddle with these men, but let them alone; (because, if this scheme or this work is from men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is from God, YOU will not be able to overthrow them otherwise, YOU may perhaps be found fighters actually against God."

Gamaliel taught Law so it is reasonable to assume that Paul was training to be one.

I have to admit that I assumed that you were referring to the mention of 666 in Revelation.

Revelation 13:17 and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, [even] the name of the beast or the number of his name.
Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred and sixty and six.

A footnote on that verse reads:-

"“Six hundred and sixty-six,” ?A; P47 and Minuscule ms 046, ????, the Gr. letters representing the number 666. Here the number 6 is emphasized to a third degree, namely, 6 plus 60 plus 600".

People have wanted to discredit Paul for centuries, partly because there are more scriptures by him which discredit the pagan trinity teaching than any other, though he is not actually alone in that. It seems their smear campaign has been more successful that I had hitherto believed. I suppose I just never gave it that much thought. everything Paul taught in his letters fits in perfectly with the rest of scripture so I have never felt the need to question it, nor really taken much note of those scurrilous posthumous attackers.

So what did jesus say then tyou get them to start to stone him?

I suspect that I know what you are getting at here, but let's examine that section of scripture closely shall we especially, but not exclusively, the highlighted bits.

John 11:27-32 "My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 And I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?”” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?"

The actual phrase you are looking for is usually translated as "I and the father are one", but not always. a footnote on that scripture states "Or, “at unity.” Lit., “one (thing).” Gr., hen, neuter, to show oneness in cooperation. See 17:21 and 1Co 3:8 ftns"

This footnote indicates that Jesus did not mean one in status or being, but in purpose, because of the fact that the neuter form of the Greek is used there.

So what else in that scripture can clarify that? There are two that tend to, the one Jesus was citing when he answered his propective assasins(Psalm 82:6) “I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods, And all of YOU are sons of the Most High." and one which alos uses gods in a much wider sense. (1 Corinthians 8:5) For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,”.

Jesus then goes on to say "because I said, I am God’s Son". so there is no claim or indication here to back up the pagan trinity teaching, unless you ignore context completely, which is a dangerous thing to do. Jesus was only claiming, rightly, to be God's son.

Screwdrivers.

Nah, I'm not into cocktails.

Did he not use the same words as God did when he spoke from the burning bush?

And if what you say is truetrue the why would they go to stoning?

(What do you think he meant by "I received of the Lord".) In any case, you said, "No, Paul didn't turn it into that, that didn't happen until well after he died."

He wrote it, so obviously, however you care to believe he came by it, it was before he died.




Luke was a disciple of Paul.
And if Jesus started it, why would Paul need to re-institute it (or whatever he was doing in his letter to the Corinthians? Wouldn't they have been performing it weekly or annually since?)

There is some dispute not only over that, but also what words God used when speaking from the burning bush. As for the words Jesus used, at John 8:58, early manuscripts come up rather different to the well known version:-

Jesus—In Existence Before Abraham

Joh 8:58—“before Abraham came into existence, I have been” Gr., ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ????
(prin A?bra?am? ge?ne?sthai e?go? ei?mi?)


Fourth/Fifth Century

“before Abraham was, I have been” Syriac—Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.

Fifth Century “before ever Abraham came to be, I was” Curetonian Syriac—Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

Fifth Century “before Abraham existed, I was” Syriac Pes***ta—Edition: The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Pes***to Version, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.

Fifth Century “before Abraham came to be, I was” Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.

Sixth Century “before Abraham was born, I was” Ethiopic—Edition: Novum Testamentum . . . Æthiopice (The New Testament . . . in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

The verse at Exodus 3:14 to which I believe you are referring is often rendered as in the NKJV:Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. However, again there is much dipute over that, and many translations render it is found, for isntance in Rotherham's Emphasised Bible :-Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I Will Become whatsoever I please, And he said-Thus, shalt thou say to the sons of Israel, I Will Become hath sent me unto you. This rendition fits better with the tense of the original language words which are actually in the future imperfect tense, i. e. denoting something which will happen but has not yet.

It appears to be another of those scriptures that some have changed to try to prove the unbiblical trinity teaching. A reference bible footnote on that verse reads:-

“I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Heb., ? ? ? (?Eh?yeh? ?Asher? ?Eh?yeh?), God’s own self-designation; Leeser, “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE”; Rotherham, “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” Gr., E?go? ei?mi ho on, “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One”; Lat., e?go sum qui sum, “I am Who I am.” ?Eh?yeh? comes from the Heb. verb ha?yah?, “become; prove to be.” Here ?Eh?yeh? is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Compare Ge 2:4 ftn, “Jehovah,” where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb ha?wah? appears in the divine name.


This is why you have to dig a little deeper than just the surface meaning presented to you. To be accurate it has to fit in with the rest of scripture, and "I am" is not only ungrammatical, but simply doesn't fit with the rest of the bible.

Basically they wanted rid of him, he was a nuisance exposing their lies and the best thing they could try was blasphemy, no doubt they, like most nowadays tried to see Jesus words as him claiming to be God, but he very soon cleared that up. However they may even have been trying to claim that his calling himself God's son was blasphemy, which it could well have been had he not been doing so rightfully.

Funnily enough most churches today see people like me in the same light; exposing their lies and loosing the "bums on seat" and coins in the collection plate.

.

It turning into the Eucharist didn't happen until after Paul died, that happened in about the 2nd century when it was taught that it was not symbolic, but that the emblem actually did become Christ's body and blood. A rite borrowed from pagan worship again. To Paul as to the other Apostles it was still a symbolic memorial, which would presumably happen annually since that is how often memorials were generally performed.

I think I have already said that there were two ways he could have "received it from the Lord", it could have been on the road to Damascus when Jesus himself stopped him in his tracks and blinded him until the Apostles Jesus sent to meet him and teach him arrived to do so. Otherr than that he could have received it second hand via one of thsoe Apostles. Either way it came from Jesus, because he initiated it.





Luke could hardly have been a disciple of Paul since he was already a disciple of Jesus and an Apostle. Many of the Apostles looked up to Paul to any extent and even Peter more than once accepted correction from Paul when he overstepped the mark, as was always Peters tendency. One would assume that was because of Paul's zeal for Jesus teachings, though I suppose it may also have been because of the manner of Paul's selection, I can see no other reason.

Was Paul re-instating it? or was he rather explaining it to the congregation? There is no way of knowing. However we do know that there was much dissent amongst various members of many of the congregations and it was a full time job for Paul and the others to keep everyone on the right path. For instance, 1 John 2:18 states: “Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as you have heard that antichrist [Gr., an?ti?khri?stos] is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists;" Not just one antichrist, but many you note, and these are the ones that Paul and the others were fighting against. 1 John 4:3 also states that "but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist’s [inspired expression] which YOU have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world.".

And just to rub in a point which others on here deny, where is the only source of Christ's teachings to compare the antichrist's teachings to? In the bible. The bible really is the touchstone against which all teachings need to be measured.

First, I'd have thought you'd think it was worse to become actual flesh and blood. In any case It would have been complete blasphemy to a Jew, symbolic or otherwise. Before Paul it had to have been simple remember me when you eat and drink.

And, the term used by Paul, the Lord's Supper, was so redolent of mystery pagan religion, the early church fathers did change it to the Eucharist which had Hebrew etymology at least, if not theology.



Doesn't matter when or where he "received it", it was symbolic or transmuted flesh and blood which would have been blasphemy.




It's considered common knowledge. You're the first one I've come across to say otherwise. Wiki:

"Luke, a native of Antioch, by profession a physician. He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his [Paul's] martyrdom. Having served the Lord continuously, unmarried and without children, filled with the Holy Spirit he died at the age of 84 years.

None of the authors of the NT books knew Jesus except for James, Peter which may be another Peter since the date is in doubt, and Revelation who we have no idea of its authorship. None of the Gospels claim to be first hand and were all most certainly written long after Jesus died, and even after Paul's writing which is the real problem--his corrupting influence was incorporated into the books that were accepted as canon except James and Revelation--and they couldn't keep those out because they were too well known.

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hamadi Library which escaped the destruction of those who codified the canon. Who knows what other manuscripts (or artifacts such as those already surfacing) will be found and enlighten us to the Truth.

I really don't know where you get most of your information from, but it isn't very accurate.



When Jesus initiated it he said:-

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke 22:20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you. NKJV

There is nothing wrong with Paul calling it the Lord's supper. It was an outstanding meal at which Jesus made a direct covenant between himself and the 11 disciples still present, that would see them, and others "bought from the earth" rule in heaven alongside Jesus. That was one covenant which was only his to make, not God's as it was to be his kingdom, at least for the first thousand years after it was eventually set up (according to prophecy, and confirmed by prophesied signs, in 1914).

Note he said "this is my body", and "my blood even that which is poured out for you". That is actually even stronger seeming language than Paul used so if anything Paul could be accused of watering it down. There is nothing blasphemous about something being a symbol, though if it were to be the real thing that would not only be blasphemous, as the Eucharist is, it would also be cannibalistic.

Some translations put it as "this means my body" which again is making it a symbol for people to remember the event by.

Again, the term used by Paul was even milder than that being used by Christ, so if you are saying Paul is guilty of Blasphemy, then Jesus is even more so.

Neither intended it ever to be symbolic of transmuted, or transubstantiated blood and flesh, it was simply a symbol of what Jesus was doing for mankind, giving up his flesh and his blood. Transubstantiation has no basis in scripture.