On Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul)

[Nonson]

Deborah,


"2. Paul taught that the whole function of Jesus centred on his death which released the faithful from the burden of their sins, their misery and the power of Satan. In fact not a single word Paul wrote in the Epistles gives the actual teaching of Jesus, nor does he mention even one of his parables; instead he spreads his own philosophy and his own ideas.
- Do you mean to say that Paul did not know Jesus well or that he knew but he chose to teach his own theories cintracdictory to Jesus's, if yes, please substntiate."
____________________________________________________________

It is my contention that members of the Sanhedrin knew Jesus very well and feared him greatly. That, to me, is the reason why they appointed Saul to persecute the early Christians. They quickly learned that their tactics of intimidation and death was not stemming the rising tide so they adopted a wholly new plan to undermine, distort, and eventually turn Christianity into a useful tool of Pharisaical Judaism (Talmudism). Paul, being a effective persecutor was selected as the one to conceal the truth of Christ behind a facade of half-truths and outright lies. The result of his effort is the pharisaical Chirstianity (Paulinism) as set forth in his masterpiece, The Epistle to the Romans.


Nonson

[Deborah_R]

I am more interested in Paul's relationship with Jesus (of the bible). Though I will have to look into Paul's "career", I have some books on it.

[Nonson]

Deborah,

Though I had intended this article for another place it will serve just as well here. The biblical tales of Paul are not to be trusted. For the lies that were initially so craftily constructed were still being repeated a thousand years later. Please consider this:


Is the Septuagint Trustworthy?

by David B Loughran
August 1999


The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. It is not inspired.
Tradition has it that the Septuagint (known also as the LXX because 70 scribes were involved in its production) was written some 250 years before the Christian era. But this is not the case.


WAS THERE A PRE-CHRISTIAN SEPTUAGINT?

In his book Forever Settled (published by The Bible For Today: 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood. N.J. 08108 USA) Jack Moorman writes on page 13 "Paul Kahle ( a famous O.T. scholar) who has done extensive work in the Septuagint does not believe that there was one original old Greek version and that consequently the manuscripts of the Septuagint (so-called) cannot be traced back to one archtype...


Peter Ruckman (in the Christian's handbook of Manuscript Evidence) has taken a similar position. His arguments can be summarized as follows:

1. The letter of Aristeas is mere fabrication (Kahle calls it propaganda), and there is no historical evidence that a group of scholars translated the O.T. into Greek between 250 - 150 B.C.

2. The research of Paul Kahle shows that there was no pre-Christian LXX.

3. No one has produced a Greek copy of the Old Testament written before 300 A.D.

4. In fact, the Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text."

PROBLEM TEXTS

In his masterful book Problem Texts (published by Pensecola Bible Institute Press, P.O. Box 7135, Pensecola, Florida 32504. USA) Peter S Ruckman Ph.D. writes of the Septuagint in Appendix Two, pages 407-409: "I have a copy of the notorious Septuagint on my desk (Zondervan Publishing Co.1970, from Samuel Baxter & Sons, London). In the Introduction, the party line of the Alexandrian Cult is laid out as neatly as a tiled floor. Our writer says 'THE FACT' may be regarded as 'CERTAIN' that the Greek Old Testament LXX had begun to be translated before 285BC. The evidence for this? Don't be silly; the Alexandrian Cult never deals with evidence. Every LXX manuscript cited in the Septuagint Concordance was written 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. They are as follows:"


Ruckman then lists the 4 Greek manuscripts from which the Septaugint came. Brief details include:

1. A- "Alexandrinus:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 14:14-17; 15:1-6, 16-19, 16:6-10, Leviticus 6:19-23, 1 Samuel 12:17-14:9, 1 Kings 3-6 and Psalms 69:19-79:10.

2. Aleph-"Sinaiticus:" written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.

3. C- "Codes Ephraemi:" written more than 300 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and all of the major and minor prophets!

4. B -"Vaticanus:" It omits all off Genesis 1:1 - 46:28, all of Psalms 105:26-137:6, and parts of 1 Samuel, I Kings and Nehemiah. It contains the Apocrpha books of the Old Testament.

Ruckman continues:

"Those interested in further damaging evidence will observe that every papyrus manuscript found with any part of the Old Testament in it was written after the resurrection, with the exception of one scrap containing less than six chapters of Deuteronomy on it.


The "Septuagint" papyri (we have listed all 23 of them with all that they contain and the dates they were written in The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence pp.48-51, published in 1970) were all written within 60 to 500 years after John finished writing the Book of Revelation."

"The mythological LXX or Septuagint is the most persistent spook to haunt orthodox Christianity since the myth that Christ was born in a cave. The theory is based on abstract speculation of the wildest sort without one piece of reliable documented evidence of ANY kind that there was ever on this earth one single copy of an OLD Testament in GREEK before the heading up of the school at Alexandria by Origen, one hundred years after the entire New Testament was complete, yet to this day there exists on every campus of every fundamental school in the United States the nebulous ghost of this non-existent spook."

If the reader is interested in further studying this issue of Bible Versions and how that the King James Version is the infallible Word of God, then you simply must buy Ruckman's book Problem Texts. Never in all my days have I read such hard-hitting facts in favour of the Authorized Version. But be warned, Ruckman's style is not for the faint-hearted, especially if they are afraid of the facts!


Nonson

[Deborah_R]

This is like reading something in a foreign language, lukily I am no stranger to foreing languages, but I need a teacher or translator. How about you will take up the position. Let's start with:

Septuagint- an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. Please forgive my ignorance, the old testement was written in what language? Was it Hebrew? And then it was translated in to Greek?

It is not inspired - meaning?

Tradition has it that the Septuagint (known also as the LXX because 70 scribes were involved in its production) was written some 250 years before the Christian era. But this is not the case. - Meaning it is against the tradition, meaning not 250 before or not the 70 scribes?

I am sorry but I can't understand anything, I hope you don't think me stupid. I appreciate you taking the time to explain and again apologise for my ignorance.

[Nonson]

Originally posted by Deborah_R
This is like reading something in a foreign language, lukily I am no stranger to foreing languages, but I need a teacher or translator. How about you will take up the position. Let's start with:

Septuagint- an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. Please forgive my ignorance, the old testement was written in what language? Was it Hebrew? And then it was translated in to Greek?

There was no Old Testament prior to the Septuagint, and was indeed based upon that Book which it is falsely claimed that 70 scribes translated. There was never an Old Testament in Hebrew because the Jews had the Torah which was writ down sometimes around the supposed Babylonian Capitivity.

It is not inspired - meaning?

-Meaning it is not the Word of God.


Tradition has it that the Septuagint (known also as the LXX because 70 scribes were involved in its production) was written some 250 years before the Christian era. But this is not the case. - Meaning it is against the tradition, meaning not 250 before or not the 70 scribes?

-Meaning both. It is a lie.

I am sorry but I can't understand anything, I hope you don't think me stupid. I appreciate you taking the time to explain and again apologise for my ignorance.

No need to apoligize. You're dealing with material of which you have no knowledge. Confusion is to be expected. Take your time. Ask questions.


Nonson

[Deborah_R]

Thank you for your patience. I fell more comfortable now.