No Holds Barred Bible Study

lol, the very first big point made int he first video is that Jesus came to fulfill the law. There are three huge errors in that statement.

The first is that a big deal is made later about Paul never having met Jesus, so how can Paul speak on Jesus' behalf? And yet "evidence" from the Bible (Matthew 5:17) about the true intention of Jesus is presented by an author who... never met Jesus?

Second, if the intention of Jesus was to fulfill the law then why is it mentioned only in Matthew?

Third, this point is tied into the second one, but by simply picking and choosing a passage from the bible and saying "there we go look I'm right" it is entirely failing to take into consideration many of the other factors that were behind the writing of it.

Take for instance that there are four Gospels, and yet each Gospel talks about Jesus in a different way. Mark speaks of Jesus as the Son of Man, Matthew as the King of Jews, Luke as the Saviour of the World and John as the Son of God. So why on earth are they all different? Most likely because they were all targeted at different audiences, in this instance Matthew's target audience was Jewish converts to Christianity. It would be very appealing to Jews to know that they didn't have to change any of their previous practices...

Other miscellaneous points include what exactly "fulfill" means, furhtermore whether there is even a "right" answer to that question. Doesn't all of these presuppose that the "right" answer is whatever Jesus originally intended, begging the question as to how we could ever know what Jesus originally intended?

But you know what? If Jesus was as kind and peace-loving as he is made out to be then that would lead one to hope that such doctrinal distinctions probably don't matter all that much, what matters is being a good person so getting hung up on who said what to whom and who intended what etc does more harm than good?

If Paul was the "anti-christ" (a hugely loaded term) then wouldn't that be second to whether he was a good person?

Paul was not a good person according to the bible. He was a murderer. Do you know lots of murderers that are good people? Many of them convert and claim to be good people after they get caught or to fulfill certain agendas.

The second video goes more in depth, but also goes off into some stuff I am not interested in.

ghost dog wrote: Paul was not a good person according to the bible. He was a murderer. Do you know lots of murderers that are good people? Many of them convert and claim to be good people after they get caught or to fulfill certain agendas.

If people couldn't redeem themselves, atone for their sins or be forgiven then Jesus must have been wasting his time.

Even if Paul had an agenda we would judge it based on his actions. So we end up talking about what it was Paul did after his experience anyway.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/The%20Gospel%20of%20Paul.htm

http://www.thenazareneway.com/concerning_paul_and_the_disciple.htm

Luke-Acts and Revelation were written in Allegory in order to preserve the true story of Jesus the Nazarene and Mary Magdalene.
The Nazarenes were under attack and feared total destruction of their doctrine. Allegory was their only hope of saving their history
from destruction at the hands of their enemy, Saulus, aka "The Apostle Paul. "

http://www.thenazareneway.com/Mary%20Magdalene%20Great%20Mother-Goddess%20Queen.htm

to redeem yourself you have to have a repentance, complete change, but if one's claimed redemption is to continue to destroy something then there was no repentance or desired redemption.


allegory

If people couldn't redeem themselves, atone for their sins or be forgiven then Jesus must have been wasting his time.

you are missing the whole point. it seems you are still buying into Saul's lies about who "Jesus" was.

Ok then, ignoring all the accounts from Paul, who was Jesus and what evidence can we use to inform ourselves that this is an accurate representation?