Mtume Muhammad: Jamii isipotoshwe; Jua huzama katika Chemchemu ya matope Meusi na Mazito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Umejitahiidi mwenyewe kuwa umejibu.

Kwanini alitaka kujiua? mbona hili hukujibu?

Are you sure, Waraqa alikuwa NEPHEW tu?
Are you sure, Muhammad alishapokea revelations kabla? Maana tunaona anakiri mwenyewe kuwa hakuwahi kupokea revelation mpaka alipoanza kuvaa nguo za kike!!
 

Kwa nini hufundishiki mashudu [emoji15] [emoji346] [emoji346] Paulo alicho sema nyinyi mnao wazia Mungu ni mpumbavu nyinyi ndio wapumbavu ndicho alicho fundisha Prof Paulo [emoji106] [emoji123] wewe mkamuliwa ngama mtarajiwa huwezi ukamuelewa Prof Paulo abadan [emoji15] [emoji12] [emoji53]
 
Kwa akili za kisilamu silamu umepatia karibu Italia nyau nyau [emoji12] [emoji38]
 




Sishangai kwa mujibu wa ilimu islamu hii [emoji117] View attachment 948672 sio Injili ni porojo [emoji15] [emoji12] Haki ya Mungu umesha ghafilika dogo mashudu [emoji12] sababu baba kasim hayo yoote amesha yakurubia na ameagiza mumgeze ili mwende wote jahannam [emoji38] [emoji38] [emoji38]
 
Ulijuaje kuna haja ya wembe kama hujanyoolewa [emoji15] [emoji38] [emoji38]


Hana pesa za kwenda saloon , mpelekee wembe mungu wako huyo anataka kushave , akaonyeshwe mji na shetani

Amepata free lift hapo huku shetani yuko tayari na chupi tu😛😛😛😛😛😛






 


On Paul's 'Epistles'


"These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth.


They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth').


They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence.


They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution.


They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master …


These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many ...


Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher ... on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered. "


– G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 22-23.
 
Kwa akili za kisilamu silamu umepatia karibu Italia nyau nyau [emoji12] [emoji38]

Acts


The core of the Pauline myth is to be found in just a few verses of the "confessional statement" in the book of Acts:


"When they heard him speak to them in Hebrew, they became very quiet. Then Paul said:


"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.


I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify.


I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished."


– Acts 22.2-5.
 
Haahaaa there is free will in Islam! my foot! Are you sure Abduls???

Kamata hiyo.

[MEDIAE]

4.


Evidence of the makeover – the tensions of "Paul"




Paul is pro-Law?


"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."
– Romans 2.13.

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."
– Romans 3.31.


"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."
– Romans 7.12.


"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." – Acts 24.14.






Paul is anti-Law?


"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." – Galatians 3.13.


"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin ... Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." – Romans 3:20,28


"But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." – Romans 7.6.


"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." – Romans 10.4
 






"Paul the Missionary" – an impostor



None of the pegs which purport to attach Paul to the secular history of the middle years of the 1st century can withstand scrutiny (not Aquila and Priscilla, not Gallio, not Aretas, not Nero). Oddly, in a compendium of letters amounting to about 44,000 words, nothing unambiguously "dates" the writer.


Did Paul really evangelize among the Gentiles?



A simple yet undeniable truth is that NOT ONE of the early Christian churches in the major cities of the Roman world owed anything to a pioneering apostle called Paul. Without exception, the circumstances in which these churches emerged, and the personalities involved, are quite unknown. Manifestly, no charismatic founder was required for Hellenized Jews and Judaizing pagans to synthesize a revised Judaism for an age which despised Jewish exclusivity and viewed with alarm the messianic ambition of Judaism.


Evidently, the foundational events were unknown even as early as the 2nd century – or were deliberately obscured in the collective memory of the Church to hide less heroic and more mundane origins. That Paul did not "found churches" casts further doubt on his grand missionary journeys. They are demonstrably fables of an idealized progenitor, an iconic, heroic and palpably unreal figure.


Cyprus Galatia
Macedonia
Greece Rome

But the evangelists were not original minds. "Paul the Apostle" was plagiarized from earlier sources and part of the Lukan creation may have been a minor figure from the early years of the 2nd century, similar to – if not indeed identical with – the heretic teacher "Paul of Antioch," whose "skill in argument" influenced, but failed to convince, Origen as a boy (Eusebius, History of the Church, 6.2.13-14).


In any event, if the epistles of Paul are fake, if the missionary journeys of Paul are fake, what confidence can we have that Paul himself has any integrity as an historical character?
 





Claims designed to give Paul impeccable "Jewish" credentials:



Paul was formerly known as Saul?

(Acts 7.58 et al) Nothing in Paul's epistles says this but of course the name Saul belonged to the first Jewish king. How appropriate that a "primary Jew" should become a primary Christian. Paul will come to symbolise the continuity between Judaism and Christianity. As Saul he mistook the Christians for heretics. But once the truth had been revealed to him – glory be! – he of all people realized that Jesus had been the one foretold by the prophets and that the Christians were the true Judaism.


Paul studied under Gamaliel, the great Pharisaic teacher?

(Acts 22.3) Not a claim Paul makes but the assertion serves to emphasize Paul's prowess in Judaism. All the better that a peerless Judaist should become the paramount apostle of Christ. It's worth noting that the claim can scarcely be true – Gamaliel, a senior Rabban, taught advanced students not children.


To strengthen its point Acts also has Paul speak Hebrew (22.2), a talent not vouchsafed by Paul's own writings where he habitually quotes from the Greek Septuagint not the Hebrew scriptures.


Paul is a tentmaker?

(Acts 18.3) Not said by Paul but a "good Jew", even a Pharisee, unless independently wealthy, probably had a trade. Paul's work record is very patchy – his "ministry" seems to have paid for his meandering existence. Twenty years in Jerusalem and he seems never to have worked. It seems his faith provided his reward:


"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness." – Romans 4.5.​



Paul was a religious policeman, a heresy hunter hired by the High Priests?

(Acts 9.1,14,21) Hardly the tale that Paul reports although he does say "how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it" (Galatians 1.13) a claim echoed elsewhere (Philippians 3.6; 1 Corinthians 15.9).


Dr Luke even implies that Paul was a member of the Jewish council, the Sanhedrin, which reached decisions by voting: "I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them." (Acts 26.10).


But just what does Paul mean by persecuted? Shorn of the lurid amplification of Acts – which cannot stand close scrutiny – this is no more than verbal hyperbole and may well be Catholic redaction, itself based on the yarn in Acts.


"Intensely – kath'hyperbolên – indicates intensity of commitment not violence."
– O'Connor, Paul, a Critical Life, p67.




In Acts 5.34-40 "Gamaliel, a doctor of the law" successfully persuades the Jewish council to release the disciples and cease persecution "just in case" the disciples were doing God's work – which makes it all the more odd that immediately after this, "certain of the synagogue" (Acts 6.9) convince the council to reverse its policy and not just beat but stone to death new man Stephen!


It is this incident which introduces Paul's career as a "persecutor" and yet Paul is said to have been a student of none other than the Gamaliel who had urged caution! (Acts 22.3).



Paul was a circumciser, who performed the deed on Timothy?

(Acts 16.3). Inexplicably Paul circumcises his acolyte "because of the Jews". Yet Paul says nothing in his letters to confirm this, even though he mentions Timothy several times. But what makes the claim palpably ridiculous is Paul's fierce denunciation of circumcision in Galatians:


"Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing! And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace!"​
– Galatians 5.2-4.​
 




Claims designed to bring Paul "on side" with the team of disciples:



Paul experienced an epiphany on the road to Damascus?
(Acts 9.3-8; Acts 22.6-11; Acts 26.12-18).


Although Acts repeats this tale three times (and each time rather differently!) the classic encounter with the risen Christ has no place in Paul's own epistles. Paul speaks of a "revelation of the Son" but notably avoids giving any details of when or where. Paul stresses, if anything, his being "chosen while in the womb" (Galatians 1.15,16) – which rather detracts from any later encounter.


Paul does write (oddly, using the third person) of an "out of body" experience, though it bears nothing in common with the Damascene road show:


"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago – whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows – such a one was caught up to the third heaven ... he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."

– 2 Corinthians 12.2-4.​


Inspiration for the "Damascus connection" quite probably came from the yarn about Elijah in the book of Kings. The prophet orchestrates the murder of rival priests and, similarly, Paul "wastes the church." Elijah receives an epiphany in the desert and so, too, does Paul. And God's instruction to Elijah? "The Lord said to him, 'Go back ... to the Desert of Damascus.' " (1 Kings 19.15). Paul, of course, is led into Damascus.


When Paul does write of Damascus it is not about the king of heaven but of King Aretas and an attempt to arrest him (2 Corinthians 11.32).


But as a "team building" yarn the Damascene road anecdote allows an early Christian – Ananias*– to intercede with the apostles on behalf of Paul and off they go to Jerusalem to meet the rest of the gang. Paul himself says he went to Arabia and emphasizes that he saw no one.


As a nice little touch, when the blinded "Saul" waits out his three days in Damascus before Ananias delivers the Holy Spirit, he stays at the house of a Judas (Acts 9.11), a name symbolic of the entire Jewish race, of course – just like his namesake Judas Iscariot.



– Paul took the edict from James on food prohibitions to the Gentiles?


"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me ... my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." – Acts 15.13-20.​


In Romans Paul writes that he is "persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself" (Romans 14.14) – and he makes no reference here to any apostle called James! An idol, says Paul, is "nothing in the world" (1 Corinthians 8.4) and food offered to an idol is certainly not defiled. But Paul is concerned that an insouciant attitude will have an adverse effect on "weak" Christians and so he cautions the "strong" brethren to restrain themselves when necessary.

Manifestly, Paul's policy owes nothing to any edict from James on food prohibitions but is sheer pragmatism.


– Paul went to Jerusalem with famine relief?


Another curious yarn from Acts involves prophets from Jerusalem visiting Antioch. One of them, Agabus by name, predicts famine. Even though Agabus says specifically that the famine will be "world-wide" the brethren of Antioch decide to raise gifts for the brothers of Judaea, to be delivered by Paul and Barnabas.

"Barnabas ... found Saul and brought him to Antioch ... Some prophets came down from Jerusalem ... One of them, named Agabus ... through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. This happened during the reign of Claudius. The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul." – Acts 11.25-30.​


Why the partiality
were those to be struck by famine in Syria itself of no concern?


But of course there was no famine "spread over the entire Roman world." Roman historians regularly attest to localized droughts and food shortages in various provinces of the empire, a different matter entirely. The soothsayer Agabus is wrong about the famine, as he is later in Acts when he predicts Paul will be "bound by his own belt and handed over to the Gentiles by the Jews" (Acts 21.10). When Luke writes that particular part of the fable he has the Jews try to kill Paul and his hero is rescued by Roman soldiers!


But the most damning comment about "famine relief" comes from Paul himself – he says not a word! In fact, Paul got into raising money "for the saints" from his earliest mission:

"Now concerning the collection for the saints: you should follow the directions I gave to the churches of Galatia. On the first day of the week, each of you is to put aside and save whatever extra you earn, so that collections need not be taken when I come." – 1 Corinthians 16.1-4.​

Later, in Romans, the collection is to be for the "poor among the saints":

"But now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem." – Romans 15.25-26.​

The missionary who supposedly travelled the world knows nothing of any universal famine – and his fund-raising has a rather more personal motive. As he rationalizes to the Corinthians:

"If we have sown spiritual goods among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?"
– 1 Corinthians 9.11.​

It is worth noting that neither Paul (nor any of the other epistle writers for that matter) ever mentions the disciples of Jesus. Paul identifies Peter and James NOT as disciples of Jesus but as apostles like himself. Disciple implies a guru to follow, apostle does not.
 
You don't understand your own book and now you are trying to teach us our book!
Pambana nayo hii.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…