The phrase “Apostle Paul said……” has to be one of the most over-used phrases in Christendom. I wish to examine the falsehoods of Paul and the impact it has had on contemporary Christianity. I kick off this thread with a number of quotes.


"The Spirit of the Apostles is not a guide equal or greater than the Lord, thus Paul within his letters does not have as much authority as has Christ." (Carlstadt, Canonicis Scripturis (1520)

"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ the Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. Making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ" (Soren Kierkegaard, Theologian)

"True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock. The cause of the principal defects of Christian theology." (Theologian Ernest Renan, Saint Pau[/i]l)

"His [Justin Martyr, St. c. 100 - c. 165 C.E.] silence about Paul, when he had every reason to cite him in his anti-Jewish reasonings, is a silence that speaks--a void that no iteration of unattested statements, no nebulous declamation, can ever fill ([i]Ibid.)

“The Marcionists (a Christian sect) assumed that the evangelists were filled with falsities. The Manicheans, who formed a very large sect at the commencement of Christianity, rejected as false all the New Testament, and showed other writings quite different that they gave for authentic. The Cerinthians, like the Marcionists, admitted not the Acts of the Apostles. The Encratites, and the Sévénians, adopted neither the Acts nor the Epistles of Paul. Chrysostom, in a homily which he made upon the Acts of the Apostles, says that in his time, about the year 400, many people knew nothing either of the author or of the book. St. Irene, who lived before that time, reports that the Valentinians, like several other sects of Christians, accused the Scriptures of being filled with imperfections, errors and contradictions. The Ebionites, or Nazarenes, who were the first Christians, rejected all the Epistles of Paul and regarded him as an impostor. They report, among other things, that he was originally a pagan, that he came to Jerusalem, where he lived some time; and that having a mind to marry the daughter of the high priest, he caused himself to be circumcised; but that not being able to obtain her, he quarreled with the Jews and wrote against circumcision, and against the observance of the Sabbath, and against all the legal ordinances. –(Boulanger-Critical examination of Paul).

At the start of Christianity stand two figures: Jesus and Paul. Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of their religion, the events of his life comprise the foundation story of Christianity; but Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a universal scheme of salvation, stretching from the creation of Adam to the end of time.

How do we understand the relationship between Jesus and Paul? What would Jesus himself have thought of Paul? We know that Jesus never knew Paul; the two men never once met. How did the disciples who knew Jesus best, such as Peter, James and John view Paul? Did they agree with the interpretations disseminated by Paul in his fluent, articulate writings? Or did they perhaps think that this newcomer to the scene, spinning complicated theories about the place of Jesus in the scheme of things, was getting everything wrong?

Paul claimed that his interpretations were not just his own invention, but had come to him by personal inspiration; he claimed that he had personal acquaintance with the resurrected Jesus, even though he had never met him during his lifetime. Incredibly he claimed that such acquaintance, gained through visions and transports, was actually superior to acquaintance with Jesus during his lifetime, when (according to Paul) Jesus was much more reticent about his purposes.

Firstly, the Messiah, Yehsua, did not come to form a new religion for the dogs to follow. He is the fulfilment of prophecies even Enoch (seventh from Adam) spoke of. He came to set the elect free from their sins. The elect is the seed of Jacob.

Yes, I used to hear, Paul this, Paul that.
But the problem is not Paul. The problem is how the modern day so-called Christian interprets his writings.

What am I saying? Paul spoke endlessly of false teachers and avoiding being deceived. BUT what did Paul say of the Bereans:

Acts 17 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily , whether those things were so

So we see here that, one must know the scriptures to find out if what a man speaks is true or false.
But wait a minute!! In those days, the ONLY authorised scripture was the Law and the Prophets. That very same scripture so-called Christians say is done away with.

So if you take Paul, and you incorrectly interpret his sayings to contradict ANYTHING you read in 'scripture' (Paul's letters were just that, letters), then you ought to dismiss him as a false teacher.
I don't, because I understand his teachings, which I acknowledge can be confusing to the untrained.

2 Peter 3:15-16 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Keep the law.

Shalom

Blindness...

Are you people Christians or 'judaisers'?

It is not obvious that the NT as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the central character, we do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, because the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about 50-60CE, while the Gospels were not written until the period 70-110CE. Clearly the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and influenced their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Quite literally Paul is present from the very first word of the New Testament.

This is, of course, not the whole story, the Gospels are based on traditions and even written sources which go back to a time before the impact of Paul. However, the dominant outlook and shaping perspective of the Gospels is that of Paul, for the simple reason that it was the Paulinist view of what Jesus' sojourn on Earth had been about that was triumphant in the Church as it developed in history. Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul's very individual views, now became heretical and were crowded out of the final version of the writings adopted by the Pauline Church as the inspired canon of the New Testament.

This explains the ambiguous role given in the Gospels to the companions of Jesus, the twelve disciples. They are shadowy figures, who are allowed little personality. They are also portrayed as daft; they never quite understand what Jesus is up to. Their importance in the origins of Christianity is played down remarkably. For instance, we find immediately after Jesus' death that the leader of the Jerusalem Church is Jesus' brother James. Yet in the Gospels, this James does not appear at all as having anything to do with Jesus' mission and story. Instead, he is given a brief mention as one of the brothers of Jesus who allegedly opposed Jesus during his lifetime and regarded him as mad. How it came about that a brother who had been hostile to Jesus in his lifetime suddenly became the revered leader of the Church immediately after Jesus' death is now a matter of orthodox church legend. Who then was Saul of Tarsus?

shdemidemi: Blindness...

Are you people Christians or 'judaisers'?

Care to elaborate on that ?

It appears from Acts that Paul was at first called 'Saul', and that his birthplace was Tarsus, a city in Asia Minor (Acts 9:11, and 21:39, and 22:3). Strangely enough, however, Paul himself, in his letters, never mentions that he came from Tarsus, Instead he gives the following information about his origins: 'I am an Israelite myself, of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin' (Romans 11:2); and '... circumcised on my eighth day, Israelite by race, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born and bred; in my attitude to the law, a Pharisee....' (Philippians 3:5). The impression he wished to give, of coming from an unimpeachable Pharisaic background, would have been much impaired by the admission that he in fact came from Tarsus, where there were few, if any, Pharisee teachers and a Pharisee training would have been hard to come by.

Therefore the question is there to be asked: was Paul really from a genuine Pharisaic family, as he says to his correspondents, or was this just something that he said to increase his status in their eyes? The fact that this question is hardly ever asked shows how strong the influence of traditional religious attitudes still is in studying Paul, though the evidence is strong enough in various parts of his life-story that he was not above deception when he felt it warranted by circumstances.

Paul's desire to be thought of as a person of Pharisee upbringing is to be understood in the light of the actual reputation of the Pharisees in Paul's lifetime; Paul was claiming a high honour, which would much enhance his status in the eyes of his correspondents.

The young Saul, we are told, left Tarsus and came to the Land of Israel, where he studied in the Pharisee academy of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). We know from other sources about Gamaliel, who is a highly respected figure in the rabbinical writings such as the Mishnah, and was given the title 'Rabban', as the leading sage of his day. That he was the leader of the whole Pharisee party is attested also by the NT itself, for he plays a prominent role in one scene in the book of Acts (chapter 5) Yet Paul himself, in his letters, never mentions that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, even when he is most concerned to stress his qualifications as a Pharisee. Here again, then, the question has to be put: was Paul ever really a pupil of Gamaliel or was this claim made by Luke as an embellishment to his narrative ?.

Sarassin:
It is not obvious that the NT as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the central character, we do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, because the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about 50-60CE, while the Gospels were not written until the period 70-110CE. Clearly the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and influenced their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Quite literally Paul is present from the very first word of the New Testament.?

You are right, Paul's epistles never depended on the four gospels. Also, Paul never met Jesus in person or walked around with Him during His earthly ministry like the disciples did. Yet, He intricately spoke about the man Jesus and what he represented from a spiritual view than any other person did. Even Peter acknowledged he had a wisdom beyond what can be made up by any man.

The account of the four gospels were based on what was seen by individuals than the mystery behind it.

Sarassin:

Care to elaborate on that ?

Christianity couldn't have started before the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The bible says "if there was no fault with the old, there will be no need for a new'. For the new to kick start, a price had to be paid, the death of the testator had to be fulfilled.

The New Testament started from the book of Acts... Any professing Christian must identify with the death, burial and resurrection and its effect on the soul of the elects. If you decide to pitch your tent before the death of Jesus, you are not a Christian but a judaiser.

shdemidemi:

Christianity couldn't have started before the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. The bible says "if there was no fault with the old, there will be no need for a new'. For the new to kick start, a price had to be paid, the death of the testator had to be fulfilled.

The New Testament started from the book of Acts... Any professing Christian must identify with the death, burial and resurrection and its effect on the soul of the elects. If you decide to pitch your tent before the death of Jesus, you are not a Christian but a judaiser.

It is absolute genius to state "The New Testament started from the book of Acts"
In one fell swoop you confirm everything I am about to write, you sweep away the actions of Jesus during his lifetime and the input of the Gospel writers and simply invent another religion, well done.

Sarassin:

It is absolute genius to state "The New Testament started from the book of Acts"
In one fell swoop you confirm everything I am about to write, you sweep away the actions of Jesus during his lifetime and the input of the Gospel writers and simply invent another religion, well done.

Jesus said most of the things that were to come after His death and ascension in parables. Paul's gospel isn't as isolated as you would like to paint it, he constantly backs what he says by prophecies from the Old Testament which are also in line with the word of Jesus.

If Paul taught and preached falsehood, don't you think the other Apostles who were present in Paul's time would have objected to his teachings?

striktlymi: If Paul taught and preached falsehood, don't you think the other Apostles who were present in Paul's time would have objected to his teachings?

The history of Christianity tells us that there were huge objections to Paul's teachings.

shdemidemi:

Jesus said most of the things that were to come after His death and ascension in parables. Paul's gospel isn't as isolated as you would like to paint it, he constantly backs what he says by prophecies from the Old Testament which are also in line with the word of Jesus.

We shall take a look at Paul's doctrinal acrobatics shortly, lets see what historical sources tell us about Paul, the man.

Would Paul have a motive for presenting himself as a Pharisee graduate of the school of Gamaliel ? Probably.

What we are told about Saul in Acts, that is apart from his implication in the death of Stephen, is that he was 'harassing the Church; he entered house after house, seizing men and women, and sending them to prison' (Acts 8:3). We don’t know at this point by what authority or on whose orders he was carrying out this persecution. It was clearly not a matter of merely individual action on his part, for sending people to prison can only be done by some kind of official. Saul must have been acting on behalf of some authority, and who this authority was can be gleaned from later incidents in which Saul was acting on behalf of the High Priest.

However, there is a huge problem here, the High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in the New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect. Pre-conversion Saul was likely a Sadducee enforcer…a Sadducee Policeman …if you will.

^^^

I've been following this incognito from day 1
Let's see how it pans out

Sarassin:
Would Paul have a motive for presenting himself as a Pharisee graduate of the school of Gamaliel ? Probably.

What we are told about Saul in Acts, that is apart from his implication in the death of Stephen, is that he was 'harassing the Church; he entered house after house, seizing men and women, and sending them to prison' (Acts 8:3). We don’t know at this point by what authority or on whose orders he was carrying out this persecution. It was clearly not a matter of merely individual action on his part, for sending people to prison can only be done by some kind of official. Saul must have been acting on behalf of some authority, and who this authority was can be gleaned from later incidents in which Saul was acting on behalf of the High Priest.

However, there is a huge problem here, the High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in the New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect. Pre-conversion Saul was likely a Sadducee enforcer…a Sadducee Policeman …if you will.

The Sadducees and the Pharisee religious parties differed in doctrine. They became united as comrade against the same course- Jesus and Christianity.

shdemidemi:

The Sadducees and the Pharisee religious parties differed in doctrine.
They became united as comrade against the same course- Jesus and Christianity.

The Pharisee started out as for the people until the lost touch with the grassroots

The Sadducees on the other hand were elitists, they looked down on the Pharisees with sneer

They both made up the 71 member Sandherin

shdemidemi:

The Sadducees and the Pharisee religious parties differed in doctrine. They became united as comrade against the same course- Jesus and Christianity.

It is a question of Paul's credibility. The assertion that Paul was a Pharisee is lacking. His claim to expert Pharisee training is suspect, Gamaliel did not teach children therefore Paul would have had to have been educated by Gamaliel as an adult. Even though a strong picture of Paul’s Pharisaical background is presented, there are doubts, for instance Paul claims to have voted against Christians on trial for their lives before the Sanhedrin, when in fact, in the described trial of Peter before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5), the Pharisees, led by Gamaliel, voted for the release of Peter? What kind of Pharisee was Paul, if he took an attitude towards the early Christians which, on the evidence of the same book of Acts, was untypical of the Pharisees? And how is it that this book of Acts is so inconsistent within itself that it describes Paul as violently opposed to Christianity because of his deep attachment to Pharisaism, and yet also describes the Pharisees as being friendly towards the early Christians, standing up for them and saving their lives?

BabaGnoni:

The Pharisee started out as for the people until the lost touch with the grassroots

The Sadducees on the other hand were elitists, they looked down on the Pharisees with sneer

They both made up the 71 member Sandherin

I concur

Sarassin:

It is a question of Paul's credibility. The assertion that Paul was a Pharisee is lacking. His claim to expert Pharisee training is suspect, Gamaliel did not teach children therefore Paul would have had to have been educated by Gamaliel as an adult. Even though a strong picture of Paul’s Pharisaical background is presented, there are doubts, for instance Paul claims to have voted against Christians on trial for their lives before the Sanhedrin, when in fact, in the described trial of Peter before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5), the Pharisees, led by Gamaliel, voted for the release of Peter? What kind of Pharisee was Paul, if he took an attitude towards the early Christians which, on the evidence of the same book of Acts, was untypical of the Pharisees? And how is it that this book of Acts is so inconsistent within itself that it describes Paul as violently opposed to Christianity because of his deep attachment to Pharisaism, and yet also describes the Pharisees as being friendly towards the early Christians, standing up for them and saving their lives?

Paul was a zealous man, more than anyone else he was all out like a raging bull to prosecute and kill those he perceived blasphemous. I have no reason atall to disbelieve Paul's claims

3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

He was not saying all of these things in secrecy, no one came out to say it wasn't so, why should I doubt his credentials today?

Shdemidemi:
Paul was a zealous man, more than anyone else he was all out like a raging bull to prosecute and kill those he perceived blasphemous. I have no reason atall to disbelieve Paul's claims

So, we are to understand that Paul studies at the feet of Gamaliel, and then takes part in a vote in the Sanhedrin, as a Pharisee, part of a group led by Gamaliel and cast possibly the only dissenting vote of the Pharisees in concordance with the Saducees ? Surely it is far easier to accept that Paul was a Saduccee henchman.

He was not saying all of these things in secrecy, no one came out to say it wasn't so, why should I doubt his credentials today?

It depends on who you believe actually. These are the words of Paul's apologist, Luke. Paul himself says no such thing.

Sarassin:

The history of Christianity tells us that there were huge objections to Paul's teachings.

Mention one Apostle who objected to the Teachings of Paul.

Why then is Paul always so concerned to stress that he came from a Pharisee background? In my view there seems but one overriding motive; and it is the desire to stress the alleged continuity between Judaism and Pauline Christianity. Paul wishes to say that actually, when he was a Pharisee, he mistakenly regarded the early Christians as heretics who had departed from true Judaism, after his conversion he took the opposite view, that Christianity was the true Judaism. All his training as a Pharisee, he wishes to say -- all his study of scripture and tradition -- really leads to the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament.

So when Paul declares his Pharisee past, he is not merely proclaiming his own sins -- 'See how I have changed, from being a Pharisee persecutor to being a devoted follower of Jesus!' -- he is also proclaiming his credentials -- 'If someone as learned as I can believe that Jesus was the fulfilment of the Torah, who is there fearless enough to disagree?'

At this point it is fair to ask the question, does Paul get a bad rap ?

Afterall, Paul makes no claim to have studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem. He wrote in educated Greek, he was at home with the Greek Septuagint, he knew next to nothing about Hebraic/Aramaic expressionism. Clearly it is Luke who wishes to portray Paul as having the very best of Jewish education. It explains Paul’s remarks that Jewish people in Judea who converted to worship Jesus did not know him or even what he looked like, he had likely never been to Jerusalem prior to his conversion.

Paul does not tell us where he came from, merely claiming to be an ‘Israelite’ of the stock of Abraham. It is again Luke who places him in Tarsus, a city we are reliably told by the Roman Geographer Strabo, was one of the “best three cities in the world for a person to develop his philosophical and rhetorical abilities” Luke may have wished to enhance Paul’s intellectual pedigree by making Paul a resident of a great philosophical center.

In Acts 22:25 we are informed by Luke that Paul is a ‘Roman citizen’ Paul himself never says anything of the sort, and in fact very few Jews were actually citizens of the empire. For one thing, being a citizen meant performing occasional sacrifices to the gods for the well-being of the state. Would a highly religious Jew such as Paul done so? It seems unlikely. Here again it may be that Luke is trying to stress just how prominent Paul was—a citizen of Rome, even—before his conversion.

The conclusions are there to be drawn.

striktlymi:

Mention one Apostle who objected to the Teachings of Paul.

There were huge objections to Paul’s teachings, most of the objections by other sects (read my previous quotations) preceded the NT which is largely revised to present a unified disposition. You can glean remnants of the objections to Paul’s teachings in the confrontation between Peter and Paul (Gal 2:11-13). But for the real action you have to look at the apocryphal books, a good one is the letter of Peter to James as a preface to the Clementine Homilies, I reproduce it here for you;

‘For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law. . . . But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the law.” ‘(Letter of Peter to James, 2.3–5)

Sarassin:

There were huge objections to Paul’s teachings, most of the objections by other sects (read my previous quotations) preceded the NT which is largely revised to present a unified disposition. You can glean remnants of the objections to Paul’s teachings in the confrontation between Peter and Paul (Gal 2:11-13). But for the real action you have to look at the apocryphal books, a good one is the letter of Peter to James as a preface to the Clementine Homilies, I reproduce it here for you;

‘For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law. . . . But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the law.” ‘(Letter of Peter to James, 2.3–5)

Peter NEVER considered Paul an enemy. He did not only affirm the teachings of Paul but also went as far as referring to Paul as his beloved brother:

2 Peter 3:15-16
King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

striktlymi:

Peter NEVER considered Paul an enemy. He did not only affirm the teachings of Paul but also went as far as referring to Paul as his beloved brother:

2 Peter 3:15-16
King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

First, the book 2 Peter is a forgery in the name of Peter. There is not the chance of a snow-ball in hell that Peter appended that book. Second, you are quoting from the harmonized version of Pauline Christianity. Contemporary accounts give us a clearer picture.

Sarassin:

First, the book 2 Peter is a forgery in the name of Peter. There is not the chance of a snow-ball in hell that Peter appended that book. Second, you are quoting from the harmonized version of Pauline Christianity. Contemporary accounts give us a clearer picture.

What makes the quotes you have been making any less of a forgery?

Sarassin:


So, we are to understand that Paul studies at the feet of Gamaliel, and then takes part in a vote in the Sanhedrin, as a Pharisee, part of a group led by Gamaliel and cast possibly the only dissenting vote of the Pharisees in concordance with the Saducees ? Surely it is far easier to accept that Paul was a Saduccee henchman.



It depends on who you believe actually. These are the words of Paul's apologist, Luke. Paul himself says no such thing.

Can you prove Luke wrong?

striktlymi:

What makes the quotes you have been making any less of a forgery?

Which quote exactly are you disputing as a forgery ?

Sarassin:

Which quote exactly are you disputing as a forgery ?

ALL your quotes may be forgeries by your logic.