#Login Register
The Vigilant Citizen Forums
Did Paul invent Christianity?

09-23-2015, 11:41 AM #1
Status: Offline Posts:1,310 Likes Received:944
“Is it true that much of Christianity is based on the ideas of Paul rather than on the original teachings of Jesus?  My professor said that for centuries Christianity has been distorted by the church.”  I was speaking to a campus Christian group at a secular university on the East coast.  Several students in attendance from another college indicated that they had heard this opinion in the classroom as well. 

The origin and content of the Gospel message is an important issue.  Some assume that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) gives us the summation of Jesus’ teachings.  Love your neighbor.  Feed the poor.  That just about covers it.  Skeptics say things like, “Jesus never mentioned homosexuality,” or “Show me where Jesus ever said that women shouldn’t be pastors!” 

Before we get to the subject of Paul, let’s think of the Biblical content in three ways:  There are the Jewish Scriptures (comprising the Old Testament); the actual words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels (all of which are God’s Word, because Jesus is Deity); and everything else in the New Testament besides the sayings of Jesus.

Jesus said that He had not come to abolish the teachings of the Old Testament, but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:43).  In the four Gospels we see that Jesus quoted the Old Testament hundreds of times, and taught that the authority of Scripture was timeless (Matthew 24:35, John 10:35).  Jesus also promised His disciples, that “the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).  Thus, Christ affirmed the Old Testament, and made provision for creation of the New Testament.  Jesus, in effect, has put his seal of approval on the Bible.

Let’s get back to the question of whether or not the apostle Paul “invented” or distorted Christianity.  Saul of Tarsus- a passionate persecutor of the church – became Paul the believer about AD 35.  The book of Acts (written by Luke) records Paul’s salvation experience in chapters 9, 22, and 26.  In his own writings, Paul also explains his conversion to faith (I Corinthians 9:1, 15:3-8, and Galatians 1:11-18).  From about AD 48 until his death around AD 68, Paul wrote at least 13 of the New Testament’s books.     

The fact that Paul had originally opposed and persecuted the church proves that he could not have “invented” Christianity.  Paul’s use of the words “received” and “passed on”- rabbinical terms for the handing down of teachings- is significant in I Corinthians 15:3-8.   In relating these facts about Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul is saying that what is presents is existing truth that he himself had received.  Scholars recognize that this passage contains an early church creed (or statement of belief) that was recited by believers in the days before the New Testament had been written down.  Other Scriptures that preserve the early, verbal Christian creeds include I John 4:2, Philippians 2:6, II Timothy 2:8, and Romans 1:3-4.  Another notable passage is I Timothy 3:16.  Not only is this a confession of belief, it may have actually been part of a hymn that was sung by early believers.

The point is this:  The key teachings of the Gospel (Jesus is the sinless Son of God; He died for our sins and rose again; we receive Him as Savior through repentance and faith) pre-date Paul.  Paul taught these things, expounded on these things, and was used by God to write much of the New Testament.  But the core of the Gospel was being widely spread even before Paul was a believer.  In the final words I Corinthians 15:8, Paul seemed to acknowledge that he was late getting to the party!

Look at Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, found in Acts 2:14-40.  Peter presents the core facts of the Gospel, including Jesus’ Deity, death, and resurrection.  Peter preaches the same truths again in Acts 3:12-18.  In Acts 5:29-33, Peter addressed Jewish leaders, and again gives the key facts of the Christian message.  By Acts 5:42, we read that, “Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.”

Two important conclusions emerge:  First, the early church knew what they believed, and the teachings were effectively passed on and preserved among the people.  Secondly, Paul could not have “invented” Christianity, because he was not even a believer until about two years after Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, and the subsequent events of Pentecost.  The early church and the content of the Gospel are clearly shown to pre-date Paul.   http://www.afr.net/articles/did-paul-inv...istianity/
The following 6 users Like meltbanana's post:
  • damien50, MissMiami, That1kid, TonyVanDam, Riddler, seekinheart

09-23-2015, 11:43 AM #2
Status: Offline Posts:1,310 Likes Received:944
The idea that Paul invented Christianity out of some theological vacuum is completely without merit. Although Paul's Letter to the Romans is radically different from just about any other book of the Bible, the teachings found in the Book of Romans is also found in the Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus, and the teachings of the disciples. So, Paul didn't just make up doctrines to create a new religion. However, he did write the greatest theological treatise of all time in the Book of Romans. Not only are the core doctrines of Christianity found outside Paul's writings, but Paul himself taught many other theological issues that reflect the teachings of Jesus during His years of ministry. Contrary to the claims of some, Paul did not just write about some "cosmic Jesus," but described Jesus as a real man who lived and died on planet earth. In conclusion, Paul of Tarsus did not invent Christianity, but clarified the teachings of the Bible as no other Bible author ever has. In addition to his great theological writings, Paul was Christianity's greatest evangelist.  http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics...anity.html
The following 1 user Likes meltbanana's post:
  • MissMiami

09-23-2015, 11:52 AM #3
Status: Offline Posts:1,310 Likes Received:944
I hope that this will save me from that nonsensical and baseless rubbish I had to see before.
The following 1 user Likes meltbanana's post:
  • MissMiami

09-23-2015, 12:20 PM #4
Status: Offline Posts:583 Likes Received:522
Yes Paul, a sworn enemy of christianity, decided to put his life at risk and forego all his merit with Rome and the Jewish Pharisees, by inventing his own religion which does nothing to exalt himself, but exalts christ only, all the while never being fully trusted by alot of christians at first, because of his past. <--- How ridiculous is this really.
The following 4 users Like seekinheart's post:
  • Artful Revealer, damien50, MissMiami, meltbanana

09-23-2015, 01:01 PM #5
Status: Offline Posts:3,790 Likes Received:9272
I left this post a while ago on another thread.. it is a long read by worth the time. This is from a Christian perspective and just using the Bible:

Paul claimed to be an apostle by divine intercession, Galatians 1:1, 12. He claims to be ordained an apostle, I Timothy 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:11.

Ask yourself: By whom? All the real apostles are documented in scripture. There is no support for Paul’s claim other than his own word in the epistles that he wrote. Of the 22 times he is called an apostle, only two come from someone other than himself. That ‘someone’ was Luke, Paul’s friend, traveling companion, and biographer, Acts 14:4, 14.

Paul claims in his epistles that he’s an apostle by the will of God. However, he never knew Jesus in the flesh, and by his own admission, Galatians 1:11-20, he spent little time with the real apostles. ‘Pauline doctrine’ is the result of unsupported revelation. Paul teaches Pauline doctrine, John 5:31, 43.

Nowhere does Jesus mention (He is God after all no? and All knowing), or even hint, that He would give ‘new’ revelations to someone after His resurrection. One has to question why Jesus would spend 3 ½ years in the flesh teaching the twelve chosen apostles that ‘till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle will pass from the law’, Matthew 5:18; and then, after His resurrection, give new revelations to a Pharisee (Saul/Paul) that make the Law void by His resurrection. Furthermore, ask yourself why would Jesus bypass the apostles with this ‘new’ revelation; choosing instead to reveal it to a Pharisee, the sect He called ‘vipers’, Matthew 12:34, and sons of the devil, John 8:44?

We have three different accounts of Paul’s unsupported claim of conversion. Two of them are similar, Acts 9:1-18, 22:1-15 (except the part about him being sent to the Gentiles, 22:21), but not the third account, Acts 26:10-19. In the first two stories, Paul specifically asked the Lord what he should do and the Lord told him to go to Damascus where he would be told all things. In the third story, however, Paul received full revelation on the spot. Which one is it Paul? Paul is caught in another lie.

In Acts 22:17-21, Paul ‘claims’ Jesus told him to “get out of Jerusalem, for they (the Jews) will not receive your testimony concerning Me (Yahweh)”. That indeed is an odd statement, as the Jews were in fact receiving testimony from the real apostles.

In addition, Acts 9:22-25 states that Paul’s persecutors in Damascus were Jews. Paul contradicts this by naming the governor, under Aretus the king, as (the persecutor) desirous to apprehend him, II Corinthians 11:32-33.

In Galatians 1:16-17 Paul tells us that after his revelation he conferred not with flesh and blood, nor went up to Jerusalem to the apostles, but instead went to Arabia (for an unspecified amount of time) and then back to Damascus (coincidentally, these happen to be Essene [sect] locations). Three years later he "spent" fifteen days with Peter in Jerusalem, and then moved on to Syria and Cilicia (Tarsus and Antioch) for fourteen years.

However, Acts 9:20 contradicts this. It says that after his revelation, Paul was certain days with the disciples in Damascus, and preached straightway in Damascus. Then Barnabas took him to the apostles in Jerusalem (Paul assayed to join himself to the disciples; as yet making no claim of apostleship). Then Paul was sent forth to Tarsus (‘Then had the churches rest…’Acts 9:31, after Paul was sent away.)

There exists a three-year discrepancy between Paul’s conversion and his trip to Jerusalem, and he admits to having little or no tutoring by the apostles (Galatians is the earlier of the two accounts). Interestingly enough, there’s a document in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Q40266, called ‘The Damascus Document’, written around the time of Saul/Paul’s trip to Arabia (wherein existed the Essene site of Qumran). It’s an excommunication document condemning an unidentified man; referred to as the ‘Lying Adversary, the Lying Spouter, the Tongue, the Scoffer’ who rejected the law in the midst of the whole congregation.

Paul’s doctrine is all about revelation. He uses the word ‘mystery’ (Greek musthrion) seventeen times in his epistles. Outside of The Book Of Revelation, the word ‘mystery’ is used only one other time in the New Testament, and not at all in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, Mark 4:11. Through revelation Paul reveals to us the mysteries of God, Jesus, wisdom, and ‘the faith’, Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:3-4, 9, 6:19, Colossians 1:26, 2:2, I Timothy 3:9. Uh…I believe they’re found in the Tanakh (Old Testament).

Paul instructs his followers in all manner of things: Law, circumcision, grace, faith, salvation by faith, the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts, the armor of God, relationships, humility, worship, church qualifications etc.

His ‘revelations’ must have indeed been inspired, because they certainly are a ‘mystery’. Jesus is nowhere to be found in most of Paul’s writings other than in phrases such as: Servant of Jesus Christ…through Jesus Christ…in Jesus Christ…by Jesus Christ…Jesus Christ our Lord…by the revelation of Jesus Christ…and so on. Paul uses these phrases to imply his ‘revelations’ have authority from God through Jesus, yet his epistles provide no references to Jesus' actual teachings in the gospels. Instead, Paul runs afoul of the gospels. He particularly preaches a reoccurring theme of submitting to earthly authority, i.e. governmental authority, on the basis it shows us approved of God (Jesus did not say to do this, so why does Paul? Ask yourself: Why does Paul continually stress submission to earthly authority?).

Paul more or less makes up his doctrine as he goes, admitting he preaches by ‘revelation’, II Corinthians 12:1, Galatians 1:11-12. Regardless of the good things he does say, the problem lies in the many ‘not so good’ revelations he promotes in the name of Jesus. We come to God by Jesus, not by Paul, John 14:6. Jesus tells us, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them”, Matthew 7:16, 20. Paul’s fruit is a legacy of dissension. (Possibly the cause of the current 30,000 plus different denominational splits from the original "Church".

Paul is a Pharisee by his own admission, Acts 23:6, 26:5, Philippians 3:5. He was taught by Gamaliel, Acts 22:3. (Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel, a founding father of the Pharisees, who rejected the Torah in favor of the oral Talmud). Jesus warned of the Pharisees and their leaven (the Talmud), and referred to them as vipers, Matthew 12:24, 34, Mark 8:15, Luke 12:1. (The Pharisees were scribes, Kenites, the sons of Cain). It’s also interesting to note that nowhere did Paul repent for his persecution of believers; rather, he boasted of being a Pharisee.)

Paul was at odds with the real apostles. Galatians Chapters 1 & 2 are bold examples of Paul’s (hidden) anti-Torah view that was in conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Paul dismissed the significance of the real apostles, but…(just in case the Galatians cared) he assured them his doctrine had the real apostles’ support.

Paul came to words with Peter once Peter found out what Paul was teaching, Galatians 2:11.

Paul mocked James, Peter (Cephas), and John. He scolded Barnabas and rebuked Peter, Galatians 2:9, 11-14. In true contradictory style, he portrayed Peter as a hypocrite to his Galatian audience, and then boasted of himself, displaying a worse behavior to the Corinthians, saying, “I become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some”, I Corinthians 9:19-22. Note that Paul declares he is the one who gains the more, and that he is the one who is saving some. Did Jesus become all things to all men? I think not!

Paul was under fire at the council in Jerusalem (he kept silent his anti-Torah viewpoint). James decreed that the Gentiles must abstain from four points of the law. This is mentioned twice in the same chapter, Acts 15:20, 29. Paul then wrote to the Galatian church and told them that they (the apostles) desired “only they would that we should remember the poor”, Galatians 2:10. This is not what James said, which is confirmed by Acts 15:20, 29. Nowhere is there any mention of ‘the poor’ by James. Paul conveniently left out the four points of law in his letter to the Galatians. Paul lied.

In Galatians 1:20, before Paul’s statement in 2:10, he told the Galatians “Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not”. Paul is again caught lying, red handed. Paul had the audacity to preface his lie with an oath of honesty...before God!

Read what Jesus had to say about this type of oath (before God), Matthew 5:33-37. Read what James said too, James 5:12.

Paul was in conflict with Barnabas and John Mark (about guess what?), so they left him, Acts 15:37-39.

Paul knew his teachings would again come under fire, Acts 20:22-23, 29, and they did, Acts 21:21-25. He was required to purify himself and keep the Law, but the Jews did not buy the deception, Acts 21: 27-28. Paul was arrested and he then appealed to Rome (not Jesus) for rescue. His (varied) relationship with the apostles ended at this juncture, but the damage was done.

John gave warning about a doctrine that is not of Jesus, II John 1:10-11. He mentions ‘those that went out from us (from the apostles) but were not of us; for if they were, they would have continued with us, I John 2:18-19. Coincidentally, Paul dropped all contact with the real apostles after his chastisement in Jerusalem, Acts 21:18-26.

Jesus warned that He came in His Father’s name, yet He was not received. If another shall come in his own name (like Paul), he will be received, John 5:43.

Paul ran into trouble with the (Asian) church of Ephesus and they spoke evil of his teachings (that way), Acts 19:8-9, 23. He complained that ALL they which are in Asia be turned away from ‘me’, II Timothy 1:15. Paul doesn’t say they turned away from Jesus; he says they turned away from ‘me’. Whatever their shortcomings, we know from the Book of Revelation that the seven ekklesia in Asia were thriving, and Jesus specifically tells John to write to the angels of the seven Asian churches. Jesus commended the church of Ephesus for trying false apostles and finding them to be liars, Revelation 2:2. The real apostles were not were not rejected in Asia.

Here’s the big picture: Other than the real twelve apostles, Paul is the only other person on record claiming to be an apostle. We have a record of Paul stating this to the Asian church of Ephesus, Ephesians 1:1. The Ephesian church is the only church of the seven that is recorded as trying false apostles “and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars”, Revelation 2:2. The Ephesian church recognized Paul for what he was and told him to take a hike.

Paul visited the other six Asian churches, as Acts 19:10, II Timothy 1:15 indicate. In Revelation 2:9, 3:9, we see that Jesus commends the two churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia for recognizing false Jews. This likely refers to Paul. But the clincher is Paul’s recorded claim of apostleship, made specifically to the Ephesian church, and Jesus' specifically praising the Ephesians for trying false apostles. Add this up and you get you-know-who. Who else fits?

Then there’s the matter of Yahweh’s Law. Paul went to great lengths to make void the law. Jesus and the apostles said otherwise. Jesus taught obedience to God's Law. Paul taught (in Christ’s name) that the Law passed away. As you can see, Paul spoke against the teaching of Jesus. Here are Paul’s teachings of the Law.

Paul said all the Law was fulfilled in one word (a Pharisaic teaching, Romans 13:8-9, Galatians 5:14. Jesus said otherwise, Matthew 22:27-40, Mark 29-31.

Paul declared ALL things lawful, I Corinthians 6:12-14, Colossians 2:16. Yahoshua said otherwise, Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17, John 14:15.

Paul declared nothing unclean, Romans 14:14, I Timothy 4:1-5. Jesus and James said otherwise, Acts 15:28-29, Revelation 2:14.

Paul claimed Christ abolished the Law, Romans 6:14, 7:4, Ephesians 2:15-16. Jesus said otherwise, Matthew 5:17-20, 19:17, 28:20, Luke 16:17.

Paul claimed no one was justified by the Law, Romans 3:20, Galatians 3:11-12, 21. The scriptures say otherwise, II Samuel 22:21, Ezekiel 14:14, 20, Job 27: 29:14, Luke 1:5-6, James 2:20-22.

Paul claimed no man was justified by works of the Law, Galatians 2:16, 21. Jesus and James said otherwise, Matthew 16:27, James 2:20-22.

Paul claimed the Law was ‘veiled’ (too hard to understand), II Corinthians 3:12-16. Moses said otherwise, Deuteronomy 30: 10-14. John tells us the law is not burdensome, I John 1:53.

Paul called God's Law a ‘curse’, Galatians 3:13. (Galatians Chapter 3 and Romans Chapter 3 detail Paul’s attack on the Law). Jesus instructed us to keep the Law, Matthew 19:17. He came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it, Matthew 5:17-18. The Law was a blessing, Deuteronomy 7:11-13, 11:26-27, 30:19-20.

Paul referred to the Law as ‘the ministry of death’, II Corinthians 3:7. Moses said otherwise, Deuteronomy 4:40, 5:29, 6:24-25, 30:15-20.

Paul declared he sinned because of the Law (this passage is really a piece of work), Romans 7:7-13. James told us that’s not so, James 1:13-14.

Paul speaks against questions he considers foolish, and genealogies, Titus 3:9. Since genealogies are immensely important to Adam’s seed and Satan’s seed in the old and renewed covenants, one must wonder why Paul tells Titus to avoid them.

Paul told slaves to be obedient to their masters, Ephesians 6:5. He re-enslaved Onesimus, Philemon 10-16. This is in direct conflict to the law, which provides freedom from slavery, Deuteronomy 23:15-16, Jeremiah 34:13-17. If Paul had been obedient to the Law, Onesimus would have been free. But, as we see from Paul’s action, he sent Onesimus back into bondage. God's Law brings freedom; Paul’s freedom brings bondage.

Paul pretends to be humble before Philemon, stating that he has written him with his own hand, and that if Philemon has been wronged, he (Paul) will repay (the debt), Philemon 1:19-20. He then adds a cheap shot stating that Philemon “owes” him. In other words, Paul clearly states that he will not say the very backhanded comment he does indeed say. Paul’s words stand on their head.

Paul claimed we should submit to governing authorities because they are established by God. If we do not submit, we will be evil (this passage is what’s evil). We’re suppose to give the authorities whatever they demand, Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1. There is no scriptural basis for this statement (unless it be obedience to Yahweh’s Law). But, as we have seen, Paul denied the law.

Paul claimed he taught from ‘divine revelation’ (not from scripture or instruction from the apostles), Galatians 1:11-12. In other words, Paul is telling us his revelations supersede scriptural authority. Think about it. Are you willing to accept this? The real questions are: How good is Paul’s word? Do his teachings align with scripture and the teachings of Jesus? You be the judge.

Paul claimed to be blameless (sinless) in the Law, Philippians 3:4-6.

Paul devalued the Sabbath, Romans 14:5-6.

Paul drew the church (ekklesia) to himself, not Jesus. Jesus spoke of this happening, John 21:15-23. In essence, another [person] would subvert Peter [his word] and he would be led astray [his word would fail] i.e. the church would be led astray. JEsus expressly told Peter to “follow thou me”. In contrast, John [his word], however, would not die [will tarry].

Paul claimed to be the ‘apostle’ to the Gentiles, Galatians 2:7. Not so. All the apostles were told to preach the gospel to all the world, Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, Luke 24:27. Jesus did not have a separate gospel for the Gentiles. Paul lied to the Galatians. Paul went to the Gentiles because he was rejected by the Law abiding Jewish converts. The Gentiles didn’t keep the Law nor did they understand the Law. This made EASY CONVERTS for Paul’s doctrine, which preached against the Law.

Paul claimed to have laid the foundation of the church, I Corinthians 3:10. (The Roman Catholic Church? Is this why his doctrine is in the canon?) Jesus said those ‘called out’ would be built on Himself (the petra-rock), not Paul (or Peter), Matthew 16:18. (Greek is ekklesia which means ‘a calling out’. Jesus did not promote a physical church hierarchy. Rather, He detested it.)

Paul claimed the title of ‘Father’, I Corinthians 4:15-16. Jesus said not to do this, Matthew 23:9.

Paul preached his own gospel, Romans 16:25, I Corinthians 15:1, Galatians 1:6-7, I Timothy 2:8, 3:10.

Paul instructs the Corinthians “be ye followers of ME”, I Corinthians 4:16. To the Thessalonians: ‘ye became followers of US…and of the Lord’, I Thessalonians 1:6. To the Galatians: (Syria and Cilicia) they glorified God in ME, Galatians 1:24.

Paul refers to his teachings as ‘MY gospel’ and ‘ye are all partakers of MY grace’, Romans 2:16. 16:25, Philippians 1:7, II Timothy 2:8.

Paul says “{I} suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over the man…” I Timothy 2:12.

Paul ‘cursed’ those who preached any other gospel than his, Galatians 1:8-9. Therefore he’s cursing James, Peter, and John, whom he mocks in Galatians Chapter 2.

Paul (flat out) tells us he doesn’t speak for (pertaining to) Jesus, in prelude to his boasting, II Corinthians 11:17.

Paul said God revealed his Son in him, Galatians 1:15-16. What does he mean by this double entendre?

Paul declared he was the last to see Jesus, I Corinthians 15:8.

Paul bragged about speaking in tongues, I Corinthians 14:18-19. Take note: Neither Jesus nor the real apostles spoke in tongues. (Speaking in tongues is only mentioned in Paul’s epistles, and the book of Acts; written by Paul’s biographer Luke).

Paul dispenses Pharisaic teachings, Mithraism, and Kabbalahistic mysticism, I Corinthians 15:51, II Corinthians 12:2, Ephesians 3:2, 4, 6:19. (The third heaven is Ma’on, well known to Pharisees who practiced the black magic of the Kabbalah.)

The real apostles never mentioned the word ‘Christian’. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch, under the tutelage of Paul and Barnabas, Acts 11:25-26. Christianity came from Paul’s teachings, not Jesus and the real apostles.

Paul’s epistles had ‘things’ that Peter declared ‘hard to be understood’, II Peter 3:15-17. Peter is not supporting Paul in this passage. It’s anything but. He only agrees with the statement that the longsuffering of the Lord is salvation, in verse 15. In verses 16-17, he warns the reader to beware the error of the wicked (i.e. lawless, Greek aqesmos). See again Jesus' prophecy for Peter, John 21:18. Even today, Peter’s word is spiritually hindered by Paul’s word.

Words found only in Paul’s epistles: Bishop, deacon, evangelist, and communion.

Paul said that when the law was still in force, faith had not yet come, Galatians 3:23. However, he contradicts this in Romans 4:3, 22. Which way is it?

Paul defended a lie because it ‘glorifies God’ and he wondered why he was judged a sinner, Romans 3:7. He was caught lying and tried to wriggle out of it with a song and dance. He doesn’t seem to grasp that a lie is a lie, and never does it glorify God. Why does Paul keep insisting he’s not deceitful and does not lie? Romans 9:1, II Corinthians 11:31, Galatians 1:20, Philippians 1:18, I Thessalonians 2:1-12, I Timothy 2:7.

Why are the real apostles not accused of lying as Paul is? Ask yourself this: Would Jesus lie ‘for the glory of God’ as Paul did? I think not!

Paul lied before the Sanhedrin, Acts 23:6-7. He said he was ‘called into question for the hope and resurrection of the dead’. This was strictly a divide and conquer ploy with no basis in reality. The truth of the matter is he was called into question on account of his anti-Torah teachings, found in Acts 21:27-28.

Paul lied again before Agrippa, about his conversion, Acts 26:12-19.

Paul claimed Christ preached peace, Ephesians 2:17. Yahoshua said otherwise, Matthew 10:34-37, Luke 12:51.

Paul set himself equal to or above the apostles:

Paul boasted he was equal to the chiefest apostles, II Corinthians 11:5, 12:11. Not only is he boasting, he’s not even an apostle. Furthermore, Paul seems to be unaware of Jesus' word that the last will be first, and the first last, Mark 9:34-35.

Paul boasted of himself through God, II Corinthians 7:14, 10:8, 13; 11:16-17; 12:9. (He tells us he ‘could’ boast, but ‘won’t’ because he is the least. He used a disclaimer to tell us he wouldn’t do what he does.) James instructed against this, James 4:16.

Paul’s boasting and declaration that he does not lie is one twisted piece of work, II Corinthians Chapters 11 and 12. It’s impossible to read his words, verse by verse, and not get the creeps.

In II Corinthians Chapter 11, verse 2 Paul states he is the one who may present the Corinthians as chaste virgins to Christ. In verse 8 Paul declares he ‘robbed’ other churches to do service to the Corinthians (Greek is συλαω which does indeed mean “to rob” or “despoil”).
In verse 10 Paul states that no man shall stop him from boasting in Achaia (Greece). Note that he cleverly omits Asia and Judea, the locations where the real apostles preached (because they would stop him). In verse 18 Paul glories after the flesh. He then tells us how great he is (in Christ), more so than other ministers, (verse 23). So humble is Paul, that if he needs to glorify himself (which he does), he will confine it to his infirmities (verse 30). Oddly enough, he then feels a need to assure his audience he does not lie(verse 31). Pay attention to Paul’s own words.

II Corinthians 12:5-7, Paul continues in the next chapter by stating that although he would desire glory, he will not glorify himself, but in his infirmities. He then spews forth self-deprecatory verbiage to soften his boast. According to humble brother Paul, he was given a thorn in his flesh, lest he should be exalted above measure through the abundance of his revelations. Now think about that statement for a minute. A man can’t get any more exalted than ‘above measure’. It’s beyond measurable. It doesn’t get any higher than that. If it weren’t for the thorn he was given, our man Paul’s ‘revelations’ would be cause for the ultimate right to brag.

Isn’t it comforting to know how superior this man was, according to his own words? I suggest you compare Paul’s posture with Jesus' instruction in the gospels.

Paul quoted Christ as saying “It is more blessed to give than to receive”, Acts 20:35. It appears nowhere else in scripture, and given Paul’s admission that he spent little or no time with the apostles, Galatians Chapter 1, one might question where he came up with such a quote

In context of Acts Chapter 20, we find Paul preparing to go to Jerusalem, to appear before James and the real apostles, to stand accountable for his anti-Torah views, in Acts 21:18-36. He’s uses the aforementioned ‘quote’ to defend himself and his teachings to the church of Ephesus (who later rejected him), telling them to take heed for the ‘wolves’ that will lead them away from his doctrine when he leaves (such as the real apostles). In other words, he knows the real apostles are going to be irate with him and he’s trying to minimize damage before the Ephesians find out they were duped (which they later found out), II Timothy 1:15, Revelation 2:2.

It is one of only two times Paul quotes Jesus when the quote is not connected to a personal revelation (the other is I Corinthians 11:24-25, which is not in complete alignment with the gospels).

Genesis 49:27 (The sons of Jacob receive their blessings)- Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil. The tribal standard of Benjamin is the wolf.

Paul claimed to be an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5.

Philippians 3:5 presents an intriguing problem. Paul claims to be out of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew out of the Hebrews, and a Pharisee according to the law. He’s telling us he’s the ‘real thing’. This poses a few problems.

The Greek word translated “ touching (according to)” is kata, which primarily means ‘against, opposition to’, especially when used with the accusative case (as it is here). The word “law” (used here in the accusative case) is nomon. Normally, the phrase kata nomon farisaious would be translated “a Pharisee against the law”, but in this case it was curiously rendered as “a Pharisee touching (according to) the law”. After all, it wouldn’t make sense for a Pharisee to be against the law…or would it?

Pharisaic law rejects the Torah in favor of the Talmud (rabbinic oral law). Yes, they certainly would be against Torah Law. If you accept the translation “a Pharisee according to the law”, by definition the law of a Pharisee is Talmudic, and anti-Torah. Both translations suggest there is a problem between Paul and Torah Law.

Furthermore, we know that the Pharisees were Kenites, the sons of Cain, the scribes who infiltrated Judah, I Chronicles 2:55. Was Paul really who he said he was?

God changed Abram’s name to ‘Abraham’ and Jacob’s name to ‘Israel’. Jesus changed Simon’s name to ‘Peter’. These were all divine name changes meant for a purpose. Paul changed his own name ‘Saul’ (which means ‘borrowed’) to ‘Paul’ (which means ‘little’ or ‘small’), also for a purpose. Neither God nor Jesus changed Paul’s name. The switch subtly takes place in Acts 13:9 (note that Paul is once again linked to the number 13, the number of rebellion). Just like the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Matthew 16:6-12, small Paul leavens the church with his doctrine.

Paul negates the deity of Jesus, I Timothy 2:5. Paul tells us there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (Greek is άνθρωποσ, ‘anthropos’). However, the word άνθρωποσ as used in the New Testament means ‘man’ as carnal man, i.e. man with a sinful nature (in secular use it means a human being, from which we get the word ‘anthropology’). With the exception of this one verse by Paul, άνθρωποσ is never (not even once) used in connection with Jesus' deity (except in His title as ‘Son of man’). Only unbelievers in the gospels, who do not recognize Jesus; divinity, use this word in reference to Christ.

Paul refers to Jesus as a carnal man (άνθρωποσ) who mediates between God and us, for it debases Jesus stature and removes His divinity and authority. It’s such an overt act of blasphemy that it’s highly unlikely that a Pharisee like Paul would choose this word by mistake. Given the fact that άνθρωποσ is used 560 times in the New Testament, and 136 times by Paul in his epistles alone, it’s hard to believe that he did not understand what he had written.

If we look at the context of I Timothy Chapter 2, it’s typical Pauline instruction. It begins by telling us to support those in authority and ends by upbraiding women. In the middle he throws in some vague superlatives about God and Christ, which always sound nice but really say nothing. The only ‘meat’ we find is in verse 5, wherewith Paul calls Christ Jesus, the mediator, an άνθρωποσ (a carnal man bereft of deity). It’s a magnum doctrinal gem he slips in amongst the fluff so as to go unnoticed. He then follows up verse 5 with verse 7, to give himself an air of credibility, whereby he touts his ordination as a preacher (by whom?), his apostleship (according to him), and his truthful speech in ‘Christ’. Then, as if there is some reason to question Paul’s veracity (as there certainly is), for good measure he assures us he does not lie. Now why would he think, that we’d think, he was lying?

It’s undeniable that there is something amiss with his doctrine. ‘Disturbing’ is a better word. It clearly does not align with Yahoshua’s teachings. Furthermore, Paul went to great length to hide what he was teaching from the real apostles, and was twice taken to task for it in Jerusalem. The overwhelming number of problematic scriptures, and Paul’s troubles with the real apostles are glaring red flags.

In before, "taken out of context", "but what Paul really means"... You don't really need an interpreter.

If Pauline Doctrine seems confusing and twisted, that’s because it is!

Take a look at the big picture: Paul was a Pharisee who freely admitted he taught by revelation. One more time-He taught by revelation. He was at odds with the apostles. They called him ‘brother’, not apostle. The Asian churches rejected Paul. The real apostles were not rejected. Paul is caught lying numerous times in his epistles. He is the only ‘brother’ who repeatedly has to defend himself from accusations of guile and lying. None of the twelve real apostles are so accused. What’s wrong with this picture?

Jesus warned of false teachers and deception. The apostles, aware of Paul’s epistles, did the same. Paul was turned out of the Judean-Christian community in Judea AND the churches of Asia for his teachings.

Paul ended up in Rome, and via coincidence, we now have the Roman Catholic Church; which bears a striking resemblance to Paul’s church structure, Ephesians 4:11, I & II Timothy. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, this same church chose to include 13 Pauline epistles into their biblical canon; while excluding such books as Enoch. Coincidence? Hardly.

Don;t you reject Constantine as an infiltrator Todd?

Paul’s revelations about salvation by faith alone and the abolishment of the Law has been poisoning the church for more than 2000 years. Again, by his own admission, Paul taught by ‘the revelation of Jesus Christ’, (not from the teachings of Jesus in the flesh, or from the teachings of the real apostles). Paul must have been quite a saint to receive special instructions that were withheld from the twelve real apostles. Jesus spent 3 ½ years in the flesh teaching the twelve chosen apostles to keep the Law. Do you really believe Yahoshua changed his mind, and suddenly gave ‘new revelations’ to Paul/Saul the Pharisee? There is no basis for Paul’s doctrine other than Paul’s own word. They are not the teachings of Jesus, and they are called ‘Pauline Doctrine’ for a reason.

The Catholic Church is the organization that made the decisions about which books would or would not be included in (their) Bible. The Catholic Church made this decision for you. And, lo and behold, it’s Pauline Doctrine that supports their existence, not the teachings of Jesus. This should send shivers up your spine.

Paul’s writings are filled with far too many examples that conflict with Jesus' teachings. More importantly, where is Jesus to be found in Paul’s epistles? Paul clearly denied Torah Law. Jesus clearly said the Law does not pass away. Do you believe Paul or Jesus? .

If we (rightly) conclude the Law did not pass away, we see that Paul’s doctrine entirely crumbles. There’s no reason to follow him (as if there ever was).

“The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.”

― Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History

The following 2 users Like Tarikko's post:
  • khadeejah, Scimitar

09-23-2015, 01:08 PM #6
Robert Baird
Status: Offline Posts:914 Likes Received:282
Read Hyam Maccoby - Paul The Mythmaker and learn how Rome blamed the Jews (and maybe other Palestinians who became Islam) for what Rome did - leading to Crusades and phrases like "They Killed our Savior." The racist and genocidal programs of Rome continue to this day and born again ignorant people spouting Gospels are to blame for much killing and worse. Look at the thread on Mother Teresa to see how some people profit from the dogma.

Any people interested in a long thread or two on the matter of Paul the liar - I have them.
This post was last modified: 09-23-2015, 01:09 PM by Robert Baird.

09-23-2015, 01:11 PM #7
Status: Offline Posts:1,310 Likes Received:944
did you even read what I had posted brother Tarikko? you have posted the same nonsense which I hoped not having to see again. you can copy and paste all you want but it never becomes true. deal with it.

09-23-2015, 01:13 PM #8
Status: Offline Posts:1,310 Likes Received:944
(09-23-2015, 01:08 PM)Robert Baird Wrote:  Read Hyam Maccoby - Paul The Mythmaker and learn how Rome blamed the Jews (and maybe other Palestinians who became Islam) for what Rome did - leading to Crusades and phrases like "They Killed our Savior." The racist and genocidal programs of Rome continue to this day and born again ignorant people spouting Gospels are to blame for much killing and worse. Look at the thread on Mother Teresa to see how some people profit from the dogma.

Any people interested in a long thread or two on the matter of Paul the liar - I have them.

yes you've got many uncle stories. but they are just that. stories. hearsay, blabla, claims.

09-23-2015, 01:15 PM #9
Robert Baird
Status: Offline Posts:914 Likes Received:282
I have the facts from scholars and life - you have nothing but evidence of your ignorance to proclaim - LOUDLY all the time.
The following 2 users Like Robert Baird's post:
  • Goku, FlixKandish

09-23-2015, 01:18 PM #10
Status: Offline Posts:1,310 Likes Received:944
(09-23-2015, 01:15 PM)Robert Baird Wrote:  I have the facts from scholars and life - you have nothing but evidence of your ignorance to proclaim - LOUDLY all the time.

you are the best currently living example of what I call 'a loser'. or let me please rephrase that - a total loser. but I've had it with you. from now on, we will play. it's game time, shitbaird.