Paul's "persecution" of the early Christians?

[Godscreated]

 It is a literal tree, why would God refer to himself as a tree when He walked with them daily.

 John 18:10 "Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck  the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear." Again and as expected you do not know what is in the Bible, so anything you say about it and I mean anything can't be trusted one bit.

 You are wrong about the Bible being a fairy tale, but all the Bibles I'm aware of do present the same stories more or less the same. However a paraphrased Bible is not translated from the oldest and best transcripts, they are written from the existing translations to make reading easier. Well of coarse they do id they were written in the oldest English few would be able to understand what they are reading. The NASB is translated out of the oldest and best text we have, most if not all comes from the Hebrew and Greek and they used the Latin too, this combination gives use the best chance at an accurate translation. Your lack of Biblical knowledge just makes conversations with you so hard, that and your arrogant nature.  

  GC

Good point about Peter being the slasher but I'm more of a Matthew guy than a John guy.

The fairy tale says in Matthew 26:51 (KJV) = "51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear."

That version is repeated in Mark 14:47 (KJV) = "47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear."

And Luke 22:50 (KJV) = "50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear."

As you pointed out in John 18:10 (KJV) = "10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus."

So in all four versions the victim was one of the high priest's lackeys.

John names the victim but it's a throwaway name that's not related to anyone in the Bible.

Three of the Gospels say that a bystander whipped out a sword a sliced off the ear.  Luke and John said that it was the right ear.  John said Peter was the perp. 

So what's one of the points that the story is telling?

Consider Exodus 15:26 (KJV) =  "And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee."

The servant may not have heard Yeshua's message before with his useless ear but after getting it cut off and restored I would bet that he became a very attentive listener.  And notice that Yeshua became the Lord that healed, which indicates that he forgave the servant's sins.  That showed that Yeshua had the power to forgive sins as mentioned in Matthew 9:6 and elsewhere.  The servant didn't receive additional punishment.

So what's the significance of the right ear?

Remember the ritual Aaron did in Leviticus 14:14 (KJV) = "And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:"

Now while the story doesn't mention the right thumb or the right big toe it does mention the bloody right ear of the one who is to be cleansed, which is what happened to the servant.

That's how you tie one story to another one.  One story might set the scene and another story will show the application.

 I think you are trying to read to much into the event of the servant losing his ear. Many things in scripture are connected and woven into one another but this one probably isn't.

GC

---

 It is a literal tree, why would God refer to himself as a tree when He walked with them daily.

 John 18:10 "Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck  the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear." Again and as expected you do not know what is in the Bible, so anything you say about it and I mean anything can't be trusted one bit.

 You are wrong about the Bible being a fairy tale, but all the Bibles I'm aware of do present the same stories more or less the same. However a paraphrased Bible is not translated from the oldest and best transcripts, they are written from the existing translations to make reading easier. Well of coarse they do id they were written in the oldest English few would be able to understand what they are reading. The NASB is translated out of the oldest and best text we have, most if not all comes from the Hebrew and Greek and they used the Latin too, this combination gives use the best chance at an accurate translation. Your lack of Biblical knowledge just makes conversations with you so hard, that and your arrogant nature.  

  GC

Here's a list of extant manuscripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne...ent_papyri

Many of them are NOT early!

  I'm aware of those things, you're not showing me things I do not already know about and my statement stands true.

GC