Paul was never made an apostle yet the entire baptism for the dead bit rests upon one Pauline (Roman Catholic) verse.

MADE FROM WHOLE CLOTH
The Mormon Church allegedly was formed under direct instruction and authority of God and Jesus Christ. It is unbelievable how much Roman Catholicism is still a fundamental part of the church. The church celebrates Christmas and Easter. Never did Christ nor any apostle ever celebrate Christmas or Easter. The Israelites used a calendar as described in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. It was purely solar based. See the attached article on the Calendar in this website. The Mormon church uses the Roman Catholic Gregorian calendar with Easter being determined by the New or more properly called, Dark Moon. Paul was never made an apostle yet the church uses its entire baptism for the dead based on one verse from this alleged 13th and non-Apostle Paul.

vigilant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...The Israelites
> used a calendar as described in Deuteronomy and
> Leviticus. It was purely solar based.

Correction (because we needed to learn this when my conversion class was converting to Judaism):

The Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar with a solar correction, which is: seven years of every nineteen years have a [short] additional month: Adar II.

I was born in the Jewish month of Adar (we all had to learn our birthdates according to the Jewish calendar)...and it is important for me, as a Jew with an Adar birthdate, to know that I was born in Adar I and not in Adar II.

Every new Jewish month (except for Adar II, in the years which have an Adar II) begins with the new moon that month ("Rosh Hodesh," which is a monthly kind of minor "holiday," with special blessings, etc. for those Jews who observe it as a special day).

[EDITED TO ADD: I was confused when I wrote this, which means that I got Adar I and Adar II backwards, but it doesn't matter. The bottom line is: In the Jewish calendar, there is, EVERY year, ALWAYS a "regular" month of Adar...but on SOME years ("Jewish leap years") there is also ANOTHER, SHORTER, month of Adar as well, in addition to the "regular" Adar month which happens EVERY year. I was born in the "regular" "EVERY year" month of Adar...in part because the year I was born was NOT a "Jewish leap year."]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2018 05:18PM by Tevai.

No the Israelite calendar was a solar only. the jew one is moon based. Totally different. The Israelites were to my knowledge the only ones who used a Solar only calendar. The jews, Iranians, Chinese Japanese etc. all used Lunar ones

vigilant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No the Israelite calendar was a solar only. the
> jew one is moon based. Totally different. The
> Israelites were to my knowledge the only ones who
> used a Solar only calendar. The jews, Iranians,
> Chinese Japanese etc. all used Lunar ones

You may be right on this, although the only sources I can find on the Net are Christian. (I can't even find if this subject was ever posted by Chabad, who can usually be depended upon for a kind of "academic" accuracy---no matter how much I, or most Jews, would disagree with them on any number of other issues.) I will keep this in mind when I am doing research, because if you are right, this is information Jews in general should have access to.

On another plane entirely: In your post you do not capitalize "jew" or "jews"---although you do capitalize Roman Catholic, Israelite, Iranians, Chinese, and Japanese.

In English, it is considered an ethnic slur if "Jew," "Jews," or similar words are not capitalized (because it is "read," by those fluent in written English, as an intentional process of demeaning Jews and Judaism).

In addition: "jew" is not an adjective...such as your use of "jew one" meaning: Jewish calendar. The adjective form of "Jew" is Jewish, as in "Jewish calendar." I understand that you may not have known this (and both times may possibly have been typos), so this is a gentle reminder that ethnic slurs of any kind are not allowed on RfM.

The slur was deliberate. OP has been on here before but his posts seem to have been deleted, for good reason it seems. However, all traces of him have not been lost:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1685248

I thought it might be something like that...and it was also an opportunity to restate that such slurs are against the rules of RfM.

Thanks, anon for this one---your post is appreciated!

Compare this post by vigilant

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2069228

with the comments about McConkie in the old post linked above.

Sounds like the same person.

I capitalize countries (Israel, Morocco), nationalities (Belgian, Iranian) and languages (Dutch, Persian) but never religions (islam, judaism) or their adherents (jews, mormons) because I see religions as ideologies and I don't capitalize those (fascism, pacifism) nor their adherents (feminists, marxists) unless as part of an official name (the Democratic candidate, the Conservative Party). I see nothing wrong with that, though fundamentalists claim to be offended by this all the time.

However, even to my ESL ears, the phrase "the jew one" sounded unfriendly, unkind, and impolite. He lost me there.

Thank you. Hadn’t looked at it that way, but you are right.

vigilant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MADE FROM WHOLE CLOTH
> The Mormon Church allegedly was formed under
> direct instruction and authority of God and Jesus
> Christ. It is unbelievable how much Roman
> Catholicism is still a fundamental part of the
> church. The church celebrates Christmas and
> Easter. Never did Christ nor any apostle ever
> celebrate Christmas or Easter. The Israelites
> used a calendar as described in Deuteronomy and
> Leviticus. It was purely solar based. See the
> attached article on the Calendar in this website.
> The Mormon church uses the Roman Catholic
> Gregorian calendar with Easter being determined by
> the New or more properly called, Dark Moon. Paul
> was never made an apostle yet the church uses its
> entire baptism for the dead based on one verse
> from this alleged 13th and non-Apostle Paul.

I assume this is tongue-in -cheek. I hope it is, anyway.

"tongue is cheek" ?

MORmONISM is definitely a sick joke, but just as much the MORmONS are QUITE serious about the very things that have been outlined by the OP. Pervert Joseph SMith as a latter day prophet? The BOok of MORmON as scripture ? MORmON ASSpostHOLES as supposed apostles? Angels with swords demanding that teen age girls get nailed in the name of god /MORmON Jesus? (I hate to do this BUT here goes) and EVERYTHING (else in MORmONISM) !!!! In fact MORmONISM just might be the ultimate MOCKERY of Christianity.

Christmas is a pagan Roman holiday called saturnalia and of course the Catholics made it Christian! Istar is a lot worse and is all the ancient cultures from tower of babble,Assyrian, Babylon, but basicly it is pagan to, now it is about money, Santa,Easter bunny, I don't celebrate them and people think I am crazy! Or Jehovah's witness! Which is a bad cult haha

Jesus was born in September and died on passover, tell that to people and they get mad! Some ignorant missionaries told me Jesus was born in April!haha no,I love the Jews and the whole holocaust survivors baptism is offensive!

crazyhorse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus was born in September and died on passover,
> tell that to people and they get mad!

One heck of great trick considering that Jesus never really existed at all as an actual human being !!!!

vigilant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MADE FROM WHOLE CLOTH
> The Mormon Church allegedly was formed under
> direct instruction and authority of God and Jesus
> Christ.

......and just like with His original ancient church, once dead wood Jesus gets things rolling, He just disappears/goes AWOL, not being involved or seen on location anymore .....to let PR Geniuses like Gordon BS Hinckley handle things Instead, for Good old Jesus.

.....but OF COURSE, even as a no show, Jesus - the supreme intellect and divine source of all wisdom is STILL SOMEHOW running things at Joseph Smith's Latter day restoration reboot of Christianity aka LDS Inc/ THE MORmON church ......even though Jesus is NOT immediately around !!! just as Gordon BS Hinckley would say "that is the miracle of it !!!

....even as Jesus is DEFINITELY NOT still running things at His ORIGINAL ancient church which Jesus allowed to be Hijacked by Satan and the Roman Empire because Jesus is so damn lazy, I mean, sure!, Jesus can resurrect Himself from the dead, but that does NOT mean Jesus can give Himself ambition or motivation !!!

Yah, that makes perFUCT sense !!!! ........which is exactly why Jesus' latest true church -the latter day reboot known as MORmONISM, was compelled to hire a Jewish (-people who do NOT believe that Jesus is god or good ) PR firm (Edelman and Associates http://everything-pr.com/jewish-pr-firms/58741/ ) to help out The MORmON church with presenting themselves to the latter day public.

I mean, latter day PRofit Gordon BS Hinckley and MORmONISM really really stands for something ..... "in a time of shifting values" and moral bankruptcy .... I mean MORmONISM really realy stands for something .....BESIDES THE OLD HARDCORE MORmON RACISM and ADULTERY mislabeled as polygamy! I mean, thank God that MORmONISM is here to stand for family togetherness because people would never be able to come up with that on their own, .......well, OK, maybe people would be able to come up with family togetherness on their own, but they sure as Hell would not be able to come up with eternal Family togetherness based on goofy underwear, groin probing by strangers, secret handshakes,gory death threats with mock throat slashing for added emphasis!!!

....even though that stuff had to be taken out of the Temple ceremony in 1990 because the public still just was not ready for it, as public acceptance is the most important consideration when an organization is standing strong and firm for morality like God's own unchanging eternal principles, with out any regard for withering external forces of evil and corruption .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7BR3QTZXSI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8aNf-lNh-g

Joseph Smith built his new MORmON church largely based on popular American utter contempt and loathing for Formal Traditional Christianity aka Catholicism. How ironic, that with Brigham Young's ASSistance, MORmONISM largely ended up amounting to the Utah version of Catholicism !!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LA_Eusla4o

> It is unbelievable how much Roman
> Catholicism is still a fundamental part of the
> church.

You are quite correct on that. However, even more amazing are the instances where MORmONISM really does distinguish itself from Catholicism, and the wide spread general UTTER MORmON IGNORANCE ...... OR EVEN WORSE THE VERY RARE AWARENESS and ACCEPTANCE, of those key differences!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8yHieUkSJ8


> The church celebrates Christmas and
> Easter. Never did Christ nor any apostle ever
> celebrate Christmas or Easter. The Israelites
> used a calendar as described in Deuteronomy and
> Leviticus. It was purely solar based. See the
> attached article on the Calendar in this website.
> The Mormon church uses the Roman Catholic
> Gregorian calendar with Easter being determined by
> the New or more properly called, Dark Moon. Paul
> was never made an apostle yet the church uses its
> entire baptism for the dead based on one verse
> from this alleged 13th and non-Apostle Paul.

you mention dead dunking /baptism for the dead
GUESS HOW MANY PEOPLE that Jesus actually baptized according to the scriptural account !!!! (-ZERO!!!!!)
Fact is that Jesus own baptism by his outlaw cousin in an unapproved unofficial place was the equivalent of Jesus jamming both of His bird fingers right into the faces of the Jewish religious establishment, because most of all, NT Jesus was a despiser of religion who HATED religion!!!!!

Jmo but good ol Paul just seems like the Mckonkie of The old days...as in nut job....lots to bark about much of it just too out there to care what the joker had to say...religion and nut jobs seem to attract each other".no offense intended to those who still think the bible is just so special...sad that religion and brain cancer have so much in common

Woooh everybody here knows that i am the 13th apostle lets not get too carried away.

may I be the 14th?

Maybe, you have to believe the boner is the true and only living prophet on the face of the earth haha. If so then you are the 14th apostle hereby thus saith the badass from this day forward. I would use more religious words to sound more important but f#ck it.

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Woooh everybody here knows that i am the 13th
> apostle lets not get too carried away.

Apostle to whom, Adam? I though you hated God and once said that you are a better man than God. Still, that's none of my affair. Maybe God needs an apostle who's not such a yes man and will tell him things the way they really are as opposed to what God wants to hear. I suppose you'd have my sustaining vote.

I've never been a fan of Paul, and I'm a male. I can't see how any female could possiblt be a fan of him. For someone who never actually met Jesus except [supposedly, if you believe it; I don't] briefly after Jesus was already dead, How much could Paul really know about what Jesus taught and what he thought about how things should be done in that brief encounter? Jesus must have been a fast talker. And [I honestly don't know the answer to this] did Paul even speak Aramaic?And seriously, how much time would Jesus have had after he was already dead to devote to educating Paul as to the way he wanted things done?
Wouldn't he have arranged to have met up with Paul in his lifetime so that they could have more time to go over important matters and so that Paul could have been a bigger part of what was going on instead of some add-on apostle after the fact? How could he gave proclaimed himself as such an eminent authority on Jesus' teachings and how could he have been allowed to take up so much New Tesrament space?

I see Paul as where the Roman Catholic church picks up much of its anti-woman practice. And if a church that is supposedly Jesus' church were going to blatantly discriminate against at least half its membership, wouldn't it want to do so on the authority of someone who had at least met jesus in his lifetime. Perhaps the LDS church does as well, though I never had the impression that much of anything that LDS Inc. practiced had a whole lot to do with the anything in Bible other than those few passages that seem to back up the veracity of the Book of Mormon and the actual lifting of Jesus' name from the Bible, though come to think of it, other than in the church's title, they don't really say "Jesus" very much. It's always "the Savior,' or occasionally "Christ." Maybe the name should be 'Church of the Savior.' Actually, that's one other place where they use the name "Jesus," as in 'The Savior, EVEN Jesus Christ." I never understood what that was supposed to mean.

I view Paul and his claims of Jesus appearing to him a whole lot like I see Joseph Smith and his claims of encounters with God the Father and the Son and various other Biblical dignitaries or General Authorities. Pretty soon LDS Inc. is going to start referring to Biblical and Book of Mormon prophets and head honchos as General Authorities of the Early Days.

Paul was a Pharisee and his father was also a pharisee Christ hated the Pharisees.

vigilant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul was a Pharisee and his father was also a
> pharisee Christ hated the Pharisees.


Yeshua most likely was a Pharisee. You know that?, "rabbi" and all that jazz

vigilant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul was a Pharisee and his father was also a
> pharisee Christ hated the Pharisees.

The use of the word "Christ" (a religious title) instead of "Jesus" (the commonly accepted, given name) obscures the issue here, by transforming the words of the man ("Jesus") into the feelings of a God-figure ("Christ")...and this muddies the discussion waters considerably.

Having nothing to do with whether Jesus was a God-figure or not, Jesus the human being was a Jew, and he (almost certainly) did not "hate" the Pharisees. This was a political struggle expressed in then-contemporary "religious" terms...the same as a Jew today would have disagreements with the ultra-Orthodox (especially those who want to rebuild the temple!!!), or the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, etc. Individual Jews today may have all kinds of political and religious/political arguments with the far-right-wing of Judaism, but that has nothing to do with "hate." On the contrary, (as a Jew) you would do anything necessary to protect those Jews you politically/religiously disagree with if they needed protection.

The ancient Pharisees saved Judaism---without the Pharisees, Judaism would have gone extinct after the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE.

BECAUSE of the ancient Pharisees, there was a brand new "expression" of Judaism available (congregational Judaism) which, almost seamlessly, replaced Temple-based worship and Temple-based Jewish identification...

...it was as if, in many ways, the Temple had never existed at all. Every rabbi since the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE is a religious/political "descendant" of the Pharisees...and, as I have said before, this includes your friendly local neighborhood rabbi, no matter where on this planet you live. (ALL rabbis are "descended" from the Pharisees, without exception...rabbinical Judaism IS the historical, and the contemporary, expression of Phariseeism.)

Jesus did not "hate" the Pharisees any more than I, as a Jew, "hate" the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, or the Jewish idiots who are working so diligently to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. I VERY STRONGLY (and frequently) DISAGREE with the Israeli Chief Rabbinate...and (after spending a day with the hopeful "temple" Jews in Jerusalem) I think the male Jews who are devoting their ENTIRE LIVES to the attempt to reinstitute the Temple in Jerusalem are totally (and probably irretrievably) meshuganah...but I would protect any of them, and support them, in any way necessary in an instant if they needed protection and support...and so would most any other Jew, regardless of any individual Jew's personal, religious or political, views.

It would have been no different two thousand years ago.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2018 10:52AM by Tevai.

I was under the impression that the pharisees were more concerned with traditions and keeping to the 'letter of the law', rather than obeying the 'spirit of the law', which is why jesus the man called them out.

For example, when he said 'he who is without sin cast the first stone' concerning the adultress, or when he told the story of the good samaritan being more of a neighbour than a pharisee to the injured man in the story. Or when he visited with a pharisee and was not offered any provision to wash his feet, which was the culture there and then - to provide visitors with provision to clean their feet before entering the main house. This was the night of the alabaster jar woman incident.

The Pharisees were the fat-cat masters of their day getting fat off other people's sweat and enjoying the adulation and obedience of the people. Bit like the top fifteen and their busy-bodying about tights and earrings but they love being 'adored' by the faithful. Their conferences must feel similar to being rock stars performing to their fans at a concert with similar hero-worship and fanaticism from the bewitched. Firesides are like the small, intimate, acoustic gigs that music fans never forget.

Tevai....

OT on the topic here. What websites can you point me to, to better understand the culture and time period that Jesus the man was part of.

I want to learn more about what it would have been like at that time, culturally, religious, etc.

Thanks

angela Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tevai....
>
> OT on the topic here. What websites can you point
> me to, to better understand the culture and time
> period that Jesus the man was part of.
>
> I want to learn more about what it would have been
> like at that time, culturally, religious, etc.
>
> Thanks

In my opinion, the most accessible source(s) of information are the often incredibly fascinating lectures on You Tube by Dr. Henry Abramson. (He is now, and has been for many years, a university history teacher...he was born and grew up as the only Jewish child in, evidently, a pretty large section of rural Canada...and when he married, he became an observant Jew. He is extremely well informed...he is quick to say when he doesn't know something or has only very recently learned something...and he is funny.)

Go to You Tube and search for either Henry Abramson (which will bring up a seriously overwhelming number of different lectures), or search for any of the following as an intro to the subject and to Dr. Abramson:


"Who was Paul of Tarsus?" [I suggest you begin with this lecture to get a, probably welcome, feeling for Dr. Abramson, and for the lecture series as an entirety.]

"Who Was King Herod?"

"The Land of Israel from Bar Kochba to the Muslim Conquest" [so: after the life of Jesus]

"Judaism and Early Christianity"

"Jews and Judaism in the Year Zero"

and (also just after the life of Jesus), if you haven't seen this before: "Who Was Babatha?" (a Jewish woman who lived just before the Bar Kochba revolt against the Romans; her life provides an extremely accessible view of what it was like to be a Jewish woman in that place, and at that time, in history).

It would probably be to your benefit to know that these videos are being made on the premises of an Orthodox Jewish institution (some of these are videoed in what is obviously a part-time synagogue area, because the mechitzah/"divider" is plainly in view on the left)...

...and this means that Dr. Abramson is (as he clearly states on camera) sometimes somewhat constrained by the fact that what he is saying may not be exactly what his Orthodox Jewish hosts would most wish that he either is saying (or does not say). In particular, he evidently had some difficulty walking this delicate "line" in the "Paul of Tarsus" lecture. If he is intentionally NOT saying something, he SAYS he is not saying it and he explains why, so that everyone knows that he is, in some sense, censoring himself---and people can go look up whatever-it-is, if they are interested.

Hope this helps!!! :)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2018 04:55PM by Tevai.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> vigilant Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> The ancient Pharisees saved Judaism---without the
> Pharisees, Judaism would have gone extinct after
> the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE.


> It would have been no different two thousand years
> ago.

and IF (lazy ass dead wood) (mythical) Jesus stayed in context/character and somehow managed to show up today, as the Despiser of Religion and Roman creation that Jesus really was, Jesus would still be mocking the Pharisees as much as possible !!! and the Pharisees would bitterly resent it ....not to be confused with "hating" it!

smirkorama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and IF (lazy ass dead wood) (mythical) Jesus
> stayed in context/character and somehow managed to
> show up today, as the Despiser of Religion and
> Roman creation that Jesus really was, Jesus would
> still be mocking the Pharisees as much as possible
> !!! and the Pharisees would bitterly resent it
> ....not to be confused with "hating" it!

Wow. This is a different perspective than I have ever thought about before...and it is a very interesting thought problem.

Okay...in today's world (as has been true for the past twenty or so centuries), Phariseeism/Jewish argument and reasoning/congregational-centered Judaism is the Jewish norm, at least mostly, worldwide. (I'm not saying that there have not been historical depots of backwardness, with Yemen or some of the "stans" as handy examples...but these "backward" areas have, for centuries, been small in population as well as in influence, compared to the overwhelming historical thrust of otherwise global Judaism.)

All Jewish educational systems (any that I am aware of, anyway) are based on Jewish argument and reasoning, which is an expression of Phariseeism. This kind of questioning and logical thinking process (in the home, for example) is typically begun when kids are old enough to choose "this" kind of cookie over "that" kind of cookie...or to convince their parents that they SHOULD stay up an extra hour past their regular bedtime to [do or see whatever]. (The culture-accepted "rule" in typical Jewish families is that, if [you, as a child] can present a convincing and logical argument about why YOUR reasoning should prevail, then---unless there is a safety, etc. issue---you get at least "part" of what you are arguing for as a practical reward for conceptualizing the logical argument...it is a sort of perpetual "carrot" to encourage kids to think logically to the constantly-expanding limits of their cognitive abilities at any given moment in time.)

The Jewishly historical contrast to this would be Temple worship: as an all-purpose "remedy" or religious observance for whatever "is," or whatever life throws at you: either choose from your own herd, or buy, an appropriate animal and take it to the Temple priests to be ritually slaughtered.

SOMEHOW, I think that a [theoretical] contemporary Jesus, in the twenty-first century CE, would choose the logical reasoning and argument (i.e., the Pharisee) method of life over the kill-the-innocent-animal method of religious thought and observance.

Do you disagree?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2018 01:41PM by Tevai.

I do hate god, i am an apostle to the boner from a while back when we made him president. If there is a god i think he appreciates the hate because i don't pretend to kiss his ass like most others do. I think the hate is mutual though based on my life. We don't like each other and yes i am the better man. I would never watch someone suffer if i had the ability to stop it.

>>I see Paul as where the Roman Catholic church picks up much of its anti-woman practice.

As a born and raised Catholic, I'm not going to disagree with that.

I see Paul as the "muscle" in terms of propagating Christianity. Some might say, no Paul, no Christianity. IMO, Brigham Young performed the same function for the Mormon church.

And in the passage in question, Paul is referring to "they" (not
"we") who baptize for the dead, while talking about a totally
different topic--resurrection. Basically he's saying "even those
(weirdos) who baptize for the dead believe in resurrection." So
Paul's mention of it is not necessarily approving.

Yes, other Christian denominations do not read that as an endorsement for baptizing the dead -- quite the opposite.

Paul merely mentions baptism of the dead in that verse. He does NOT endorse it in his mention. The bible mentions many things including practices of EVIL, that does not mean those practices are endorsed even as they are CONDEMNED. But there goes the MORmONS, off on wild tangents and even more wild ill founded attempts to justify their MORmON idiocy !!!! Using that MORmON approach to things, adultery could be assumed to be endorsed by the bible, and then be taken up as a true practice. next thing on that crooked path, there would be claims that God commanded adultery to be practiced ......Would MORmONS expect people to accept adultery based on it being mentioned in the bible ? ..... WHOOPS, They DO, even as it is mislabeled as polygamy !!!!!

“Jesus didn’t celebrate Easter?“
Does anybody else see the irony in this alleged criticism...?

Holy the Ghost Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “Jesus didn’t celebrate Easter?“
> Does anybody else see the irony in this alleged
> criticism...?

I did...but my immediate priority was to talk about the Jewish calendar. :)

good point but he did not celebrate Good Friday either

C'mon . . . Jesus was a good egg!

Jeeeeesus

Yesus...

Forgot you were spanish old dog.

No, BadAss, I was going with the "no J in the original Jesus" theme, is all.

To Spanish-speaking adherents of the Christ, He is simply, Chuey.

Haha chuey the wookie?

Christ did celebrate Passover which has been converted by Roman Catholism inotEaster

I never NEVER believed the story of the apostle paul. The first time that I heard it as a little kid, my instant reaction was that it was absolute CRAP. The idea that Jesus would /could recruit and reward anyone for being so good at being bad sounded like pure idiocy to me,largely due to the way I was raised by MORmON parents.

I should have followed up on my sentiments on the matter as it would have then completely unraveled MORmONISM and CHristianity IF I would have been that diligent. On my full time mission I carefully and selectively avoided the topic of Paul the Bull Shit supposed apostle.

AS Joseph SMith was supposed to have corrected the corruption that Satan and Catholicism had interjected into Christianity then Joe should have officially excised the blatantly phony story of Paul, but Joe did not do that. and that omission was for obvious reason -as Joe's (phony) story of ascendancy so closely mirrors Paul's phony account in so many ways. So Joe avoided doing that just as I avoided the issue of Paul the phony apostle in my missionary work.

There are scholars who make a good case for Paul having invented Christianity by blending esoteric Judaism with Greek mysticism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2018 08:02PM by waunderdog.

I trust no-one who claims to see a cross in the sky. (Paul is not the only one)

FYI in 6th century Ireland, the 'scriptures' contained the four gospels. Some lucky people owned a salter (book of psalms - why would christians have a book of psalms, an old testament/israelite book?) and wouldn't share the information (see life of saint columbus).

There was no wide circulation of Paul's writings when the irish were busy saving the christian church from being completely forgotten pre-7th century.

Am I correct in assuming the spread of Paul's teachings coincided with the spread of the papal 'authority' from 7th century onwards?