"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." Thomas Jefferson.

There are other who commented in the same way,
Look another comment:
George Bernard Shaw :
"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

What is the truth?

I think Paul is the one who said that you can eat anything including pork, while Jesus said I did not come to break the laws.

What is the truth?

I think Paul is the one who said that you can eat anything including pork, while Jesus said I did not come to break the laws.

What is the truth?

You will not get answer till Jeff come back I think.

George Bernard Shaw

"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

I think Paul is the one who said that you can eat anything including pork, while Jesus said I did not come to break the laws.

What is the truth?

Eating Pork and Bible?

14: 8
and the pig, which indeed has hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch.

14: 8: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase. (KJV)

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor George Bernard Shaw were Christians! :p

And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

What does a divided hoof and not chewing cud have to do with anything?


I tell ya, there is nothing tastier than bacon and BBQ'd pork ribs.

I have seen the faces that some people from the Mid East make when you mention pork, they go :yuk:.

But how they would know?

^^

I think it's not just a religious thing...it's a cultural thing too.

You find Muslims who will sneak a beer, but few who will sneak a ham sandwich! :p

Most of us would be reluctant to eat rat meat and the fact that someone smacked their lips and told us that we didn't know what we were missing would probably not convince us! :p

Of course, you are right. Pork is delicious.

In any case, it's not just Paul. This issue was debated among the Apostles and Peter, the chief of the Apostles, had a vision from God showing him that Gentile Christians were free to eat pork. Then he proposed it to the other Apostles in council and they all agreed.

So Peter and the other apostles agreed with Paul, whom they accepted.

The entire Christian Church all over the world accepted Paul's epistles as scriptural, in the West, in the East, in the Empire and outside it, in places like Ethiopia, India, China, etc.

The notion that Paul is an imposter is just a newfangled clever pants hypothesis of the Enlightenment, of people like Jefferson and Shaw who not only didn't believe in Christ's Divinity, but didn't believe in prophets either. Both of them were happy to eat pork, by the way.

Moreover, God's laws about pork were only meant to bind the Jews, according to the Jews. They were never universal laws for mankind.

So...Christians say we are not bound. Jews say we are not bound...

Paul says we are not bound. Peter says we are not bound. The Church says we are not bound.

I think that's more than good enough for me! :p

Neither Thomas Jefferson nor George Bernard Shaw were Christians! :p

Well,
What you think about Paul?

Who are they? Who wrote it? How and When? Who modified it and who organized it!

Paul...Who is he?

+Salam

that's one rude ugly f'er who obviously hasn't read enough before barking out.
i'll let jeff react to it.

oh god he's got it ALL wrong regarding paul.

nezitiC...This same video was replied to like...A zillion times.
You'll find it ALLLLLLL over the place.

nezitiC...This same video was replied to like...A zillion times.
You'll find it ALLLLLLL over the place.
let him be, he only wants to find out about 'other' religions. :rolleyes:

Minerva, Shaykh Khalid Yasin was a former Christian and I think his audience in this lecture was largely Christians. Anyway, what he said is the same as this British documentary by a Christian on "Who wrote the Bible?" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620

Minerva, Shaykh Khalid Yasin was a former Christian and I think his audience in this lecture was largely Christians. Anyway, what he said is the same as this British documentary by a Christian on "Who wrote the Bible?" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620
so the whole new testament was written by paul?
what he was referring to colossians, galatians, romans etc etc were all letters written By paul to the people of the different churches he founded in different countries.
Saul of Tarsus had never met Jesus. He used to be Christian basher, arresting Christians. Until one day Jesus spoke to him. He went on to spend time with people who knew about Jesus and instead of travelling to bash christians, he started travelling to preach.

am watching that video, haven't got a lot of time, but i'll see it later.

Not the whole new testament, because the synoptic gospels were not written by Paul. But I think that what Khalid Yasin was trying to point out, and which is well-known anyway, is that the writing down of the New Testament began around 70 AD by people who had never met Jesus, and who were historians who had never observed the events they described. Basically, which is well portrayed in the documentary by an academic theologian, is that the Bible is not the exact literal word of God, and it has its contradictions, because of the inaccuracies due to who wrote it down and the political reasons of the time.

Anyway, I don't think what he meant is that the Bible isn't from God. It certainly is, but what is pointed out is that it cannot be taken word for word, because parts of it were corrupted by its writers.

so is paul an impostor?
i'm sure he wrote after the time of jesus cos he was in malta 60AD, 27 yrs after jesus died.

so is paul an impostor?
i'm sure he wrote after the time of jesus cos he was in malta 60AD, 27 yrs after jesus died.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the writers of the Bible were imposters. I think that what the academics are pointing out is that it is just not accurate, which explains why the four Gospels have their own differences for example. It has more to do with the passing of time, human error, and human beings being influenced by their own social and political circumstances that manifested itself when writing down the Bible.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the writers of the Bible were imposters. I think that what the academics are pointing out is that it is just not accurate, which explains why the four Gospels have their own differences for example. It has more to do with the passing of time, human error, and human beings being influenced by their own social and political circumstances that manifested itself when writing down the Bible.
sorry i was referring to the thread title.
i know there are differences in the bible, and probably many details got lost in translation too. the message in the bible does not diminish, at least for me and for the people i know.

I don't agree.

I find it offensive that this thread is implying that St. Paul is an imposter.

I suggest this thread be locked to respect my religion and my feelings.

I don't agree.

I find it offensive that this thread is implying that St. Paul is an imposter.

I suggest this thread be locked to respect my religion and my feelings.
yes me too.
lock thread. how dare someone say a saint of my religion be an imposter (sic)
tut tutt.