Paul the Liar?

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Throughout history various people have questioned the validity of Paul's interpretations of Jesus' doctrines. (Thomas Jefferson, George Bernard Shaw, Wil Durant, and early church leaders)

A few criticisms/claims I understand from these sources are that:

That Paul mystified church teachings and added falsehoods which obscured the real message of Jesus (Mostly Jefferson and Shaw)

That Paul lied about being an apostle (Levied against him by various early Christians)

That Paul and his followers created a religious hierarchy, excluded women from ministry, and forbid internal connections with god that would have undermined church power. (In contradiction of the teachings of Christ)

That Paul replaced the idea of being saved by works and being a good person with being saved through belief.

That Paul and Paulines set up rigid dogma that excluded many valid teachings.

I personally believe these criticisms are at least partially justified. Can I get some others to share their point of view?

[Floris V van Holland]

can't vote since i haven't read it.

[Col. Tartleton]

I think Jesus was a homosexual Jew who wore sandals and long hair and smoked weed and told people to "chill about the morrow" who got people really high and then got arrested and executed by the Romans who were afraid Chronic would catch on and replace Roman booze.

Not wrong, but not someone I'd ask for advice. Sort of like a Charles Manson character minus the murders...And Paul was a Prick who jumped on the bandwagon.

[Gromovnik]

I think Jesus was a homosexual Jew who wore sandals and long hair and smoked weed and told people to "chill about the morrow" who got people really high and then got arrested and executed by the Romans who were afraid Chronic would catch on and replace Roman booze.

Not wrong, but not someone I'd ask for advice. Sort of like a Charles Manson character minus the murders...And Paul was a Prick who jumped on the bandwagon.

OMG, that's so racist, bla, bla, bla... (time to burn your country's embassy)

[Col. Tartleton]

OMG, that's so racist, bla, bla, bla... (time to burn your country's embassy)

Rest assured, America sleeps safely at night because I havent spoken my mind about Islam...

At least Mohammad was lying, Jesus actually believed it...

Ave Minerva!

[Floris V van Holland]

tell us all what paul was about please.
now only bible folk with intimate knowledge of the new testament will vote. which will give a rather askew result.

[basics]

" That Paul mystified church teachings and added falsehoods which obscured the real message of Jesus (Mostly Jefferson and Shaw) "

Bandiera Rossa,

I wonder what this real message of Jesus is if what Paul said came directly from Jesus Himself? Rather than mystify anything Paul brought out the wonderful saving grace of God that all men might read of it as it was given to him by his Saviour the same Saviour who authorised him to take the same to the Gentiles.

Humanly speaking there would have been no church were it not for Paul with perhaps even it becoming a gathering of circumcised followers living under the yoke of the Law which the leader, James the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem wanted and which Peter was prepared to accept if it weren't for Paul.

Don't get what is now seen as churches get in the way of what they were after Pentecost because neither the twain shall meet.

" That Paul lied about being an apostle (Levied against him by various early Christians) "

It is written Acts 9:15-16,

But the Lord said to Ananias, " Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

Paul never said this. It came from the Lord via Ananias. So what " Christian " is it that would lay this accusation against Paul? Prove to me that these men were born again Christians and therefore speaking by the Holy Ghost and I would argue every inch that they were only religious. The Spirit of God does not teach confusion.

" That Paul and his followers created a religious hierarchy, excluded women from ministry, and forbid internal connections with god that would have undermined church power. (In contradiction of the teachings of Christ) "

Paul did no such thing. What he did do was to organise the infant groupings that Spiritual men take posts in accordance with what was begun at Jerusalem. Bishops to look after the needs of all the congregations supplemented by elders and deacons. It only became a hierarchy when the bishops took upon themselves to be rulers rather than servers and that many years later in direct opposition to what Paul laid down as given him by Jesus Christ our Lord.

" That Paul replaced the idea of being saved by works and being a good person with being saved through belief. "

Paul took the trouble to differenciate works from grace. Works is a human thing whereupon men hope to be saved by what they do, thus good works. Paul showed that since God justifies, not man, that this had to be by grace so that the human aspect could never come into salvation which he calls boasting. Religious people never understand this.

Grace comes into play through the blood of Jesus Christ because the wrath of God was on all men, none being exempt. So grace comes by and from heaven and that long before the worlds were even made, Jesus being called the Lamb of God sacrificed before the foundations of the world. Where then do good works come in? Only the religious could take something so simple and turn it into something that was never said nor meant to happen.

Oh yes they can turn to James for some comfort forgetting that James was not talking to unbelievers, unregenerates, rather to them already born again. He was pointing out that no man could have the Spirit of God in them and not do good works in the pattern of Jesus Christ. He was never saying that to get into heaven a man must show good works because that would be the very opposite of grace as Paul so eloquently writes.

" That Paul and Paulines set up rigid dogma that excluded many valid teachings. "

How often have I written that to understand Scripture there are certain rules that men must follow, them being context and continuity. Get them wrong and witness the confusion that follows. Paul writes that for the born again in Jesus Christ all things are possible but not all things are expedient so where is the rigidity in that? As for valid teachings show me these to confirm this accusation? I mean most of the New Testament comes from the letters of Paul in accordance to the other writers so where are these controversial teachings?

" I personally believe these criticisms are at least partially justified. Can I get some others to share their point of view? "

To me it appears that all that you quote above you find justified otherwise why mention them? Has it something to do with the denomination you follow which I suspect is Roman Catholicism but if not something very close to it? The reason I say this is because the Gospel as we know it and that by the Holy Ghost is all there is to know about them that are the church.

There is nothing secretly hidden in its message because what we can read is enough to be the power of God unto salvation of which the Godhead alone perform on sinners. All that Paul aspired to was to show this wonderful act that Father, Son and Holy Ghost do by informed knowledge of his own learning before and after being saved by Jesus Christ. This he did to the Jew first and to the Gentile next. And boy did he do it with power.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

" That Paul mystified church teachings and added falsehoods which obscured the real message of Jesus (Mostly Jefferson and Shaw) "

Bandiera Rossa,

I wonder what this real message of Jesus is if what Paul said came directly from Jesus Himself? Rather than mystify anything Paul brought out the wonderful saving grace of God that all men might read of it as it was given to him by his Saviour the same Saviour who authorised him to take the same to the Gentiles.

Humanly speaking there would have been no church were it not for Paul with perhaps even it becoming a gathering of circumcised followers living under the yoke of the Law which the leader, James the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem wanted and which Peter was prepared to accept if it weren't for Paul.

Don't get what is now seen as churches get in the way of what they were after Pentecost because neither the twain shall meet.

" That Paul lied about being an apostle (Levied against him by various early Christians) "

It is written Acts 9:15-16,

But the Lord said to Ananias, " Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

Paul never said this. It came from the Lord via Ananias. So what " Christian " is it that would lay this accusation against Paul? Prove to me that these men were born again Christians and therefore speaking by the Holy Ghost and I would argue every inch that they were only religious. The Spirit of God does not teach confusion.

" That Paul and his followers created a religious hierarchy, excluded women from ministry, and forbid internal connections with god that would have undermined church power. (In contradiction of the teachings of Christ) "

Paul did no such thing. What he did do was to organise the infant groupings that Spiritual men take posts in accordance with what was begun at Jerusalem. Bishops to look after the needs of all the congregations supplemented by elders and deacons. It only became a hierarchy when the bishops took upon themselves to be rulers rather than servers and that many years later in direct opposition to what Paul laid down as given him by Jesus Christ our Lord.

" That Paul replaced the idea of being saved by works and being a good person with being saved through belief. "

Paul took the trouble to differenciate works from grace. Works is a human thing whereupon men hope to be saved by what they do, thus good works. Paul showed that since God justifies, not man, that this had to be by grace so that the human aspect could never come into salvation which he calls boasting. Religious people never understand this.

Grace comes into play through the blood of Jesus Christ because the wrath of God was on all men, none being exempt. So grace comes by and from heaven and that long before the worlds were even made, Jesus being called the Lamb of God sacrificed before the foundations of the world. Where then do good works come in? Only the religious could take something so simple and turn it into something that was never said nor meant to happen.

Oh yes they can turn to James for some comfort forgetting that James was not talking to unbelievers, unregenerates, rather to them already born again. He was pointing out that no man could have the Spirit of God in them and not do good works in the pattern of Jesus Christ. He was never saying that to get into heaven a man must show good works because that would be the very opposite of grace as Paul so eloquently writes.

" That Paul and Paulines set up rigid dogma that excluded many valid teachings. "

How often have I written that to understand Scripture there are certain rules that men must follow, them being context and continuity. Get them wrong and witness the confusion that follows. Paul writes that for the born again in Jesus Christ all things are possible but not all things are expedient so where is the rigidity in that? As for valid teachings show me these to confirm this accusation? I mean most of the New Testament comes from the letters of Paul in accordance to the other writers so where are these controversial teachings?

" I personally believe these criticisms are at least partially justified. Can I get some others to share their point of view? "

To me it appears that all that you quote above you find justified otherwise why mention them? Has it something to do with the denomination you follow which I suspect is Roman Catholicism but if not something very close to it? The reason I say this is because the Gospel as we know it and that by the Holy Ghost is all there is to know about them that are the church.

There is nothing secretly hidden in its message because what we can read is enough to be the power of God unto salvation of which the Godhead alone perform on sinners. All that Paul aspired to was to show this wonderful act that Father, Son and Holy Ghost do by informed knowledge of his own learning before and after being saved by Jesus Christ. This he did to the Jew first and to the Gentile next. And boy did he do it with power.

Compare this with the Pauline additions: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/mo...c/JefJesu.html

[basics]

" Compare this with the Pauline additions: "

Bandiera Rossa,

What additions?

" Answering the OP question. Yes, he lied. A lot. "

Ibn Rushd,

Concerning what was allowed to be eaten by the regenerate was first seen by Peter in his vision which only authenticated what Paul already knew. So it was not down to one man, Paul, these things. It's a funny old thing about God's word in that whatever is of great importance is never left to one piece in Scripture but always witnessed somewhere else.

[Khassaki]

Throughout history various people have questioned the validity of Paul's interpretations of Jesus' doctrines. (Thomas Jefferson, George Bernard Shaw, Wil Durant, and early church leaders)

A few criticisms/claims I understand from these sources are that:

That Paul mystified church teachings and added falsehoods which obscured the real message of Jesus (Mostly Jefferson and Shaw)

That Paul lied about being an apostle (Levied against him by various early Christians)

That Paul and his followers created a religious hierarchy, excluded women from ministry, and forbid internal connections with god that would have undermined church power. (In contradiction of the teachings of Christ)

That Paul replaced the idea of being saved by works and being a good person with being saved through belief.

That Paul and Paulines set up rigid dogma that excluded many valid teachings.

I personally believe these criticisms are at least partially justified. Can I get some others to share their point of view?

As a historian I would note that the early church pre 60 AD has very little in common with the church that Saul (Paul) created with his own mystical version of of what the church should be. The charge that he was not one of the apostles is ridiculous as he never pretended to have anything to do with them. He was an opposing Messiah of the Sarmation Jews active in Palestine at the same time as Jesus. He was an opponent of Peter, who was an Apostle, and may have had something to do with the death of James, Jesus' brother, who was executed by the sadducees in Jerusalem around 66 AD when he was the head of the Christian church in that city. Paul was supposedly deported to Rome for trial and executed there in 67 AD.

[basics]

" As a historian I would note that the early church pre 60 AD has very little in common with the church that Saul (Paul) created with his own mystical version of of what the church should be. "

Khassaki,

So, as an historian are you trying to say that Paul was not around when Jesus lived or even when the church became visible it being established way back in Genesis but not as the visible entity seen at Pentecost? And then what makes you think that what Paul taught was any different from what Abraham, Moses, David and all the other saints taught?

[Helm]

Of courseseeing as all religions are founded on a bed of lies! Many people find comfort in laying in that bed but I know the truth! The word must be spread to the people so they can to can wake up to the reality! *shakes fists in trimuph*

Or something roughly along those lines you get the idea there.

[Old_Scratch]

I think Paul is more the founder of Christianity than Jesus is. Paul and others turned Jesus from a Jewish messiah into a universal messiah. Jesus did rail against mainstream Judaism and preached reform, but from what I understand of the gospels I don't think he ever intended to start a completely new religion separate of Judaism. Paul was unable to get the Jews to accept Jesus as the messiah, so he added some changes and took his message to the gentiles where it was much better received.

[LaMuerte]

Didn't Paul also open up Christian teachings for non jews? I mean , Jesus preached his message to fellow Jews , while Paul spread the word to the non jews in the Roman empire. As for the poll , I voted 'no' , because I think Paul's message is slightly different from Jesus' message. I wouldn't go as far as call him a liar though.

I don't really believe that Paul set up a strict religious hierarchy. Paul assumed Christ would return during Paul's lifetime to establish His kinkgdom on earth , so I don't think Paul would bother with a lot of hierarchical structure.


edit : Old_Scratch already went into the 'universal messiah' bit apparently. This book also gives a nice insight Paul's belief should you want to know more.

[basics]

" I think Paul is more the founder of Christianity than Jesus is. Paul and others turned Jesus from a Jewish messiah into a universal messiah. Jesus did rail against mainstream Judaism and preached reform, but from what I understand of the gospels I don't think he ever intended to start a completely new religion separate of Judaism. Paul was unable to get the Jews to accept Jesus as the messiah, so he added some changes and took his message to the gentiles where it was much better received. "

Old_Scratch,

Nothing could be further from the truth here as Paul gave out what he was given by the Lord Jesus Christ to which none of the disciples found any want or need. As for a new religion this is just not on. When Abraham received the promises, he was told that stemming from the " seed ", Jesus Christ, all the children of God would come. David wrote many years before that God would bring onto the vine another people to be one with them that were deemed Holy by regeneration.

There is no new religion, anymore than there is another Messias. What Paul spoke, he spoke as of Jesus Christ, his Lord and Saviour and what He wanted of His body. For sure Paul himself confirms this in that for a few things he makes it quite clear that these were his opinions and not commands of the Lord. None of them infringe the Gospel in any way. God calls. God regenerates. God gives faith. It is to these that Paul gives all his energy and all by the same method established from Genesis.

[Sadreddine]

Paul was unable to get the Jews to accept Jesus as the messiah, so he added some changes and took his message to the gentiles where it was much better received.

He had to make up some convenient changes though, like saying Jesus (s) was in fact God in flesh (the graeco-roman traditionally liked a lot the idea of a man-god reborn, thus it had to be done), or allowing the bacon you avidly devour for breakfast. Romans would NOT renounce pork for religion after all!

Answering the OP question. Yes, he lied. A lot.

[motiv-8]

done), or allowing the bacon you avidly devour for breakfast. Romans would NOT renounce pork for religion after all!

Erm, this was actually done by Jesus, as quoted in the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 7, Verses 18 and 19.

Awesome verses, also contain Jesus trash-talking one of his disciples. He was such a badass. Can't wait to see him again.

[MarcoPollo]

I think Paul is more the founder of Christianity than Jesus is. Paul and others turned Jesus from a Jewish messiah into a universal messiah. Jesus did rail against mainstream Judaism and preached reform, but from what I understand of the gospels I don't think he ever intended to start a completely new religion separate of Judaism. Paul was unable to get the Jews to accept Jesus as the messiah, so he added some changes and took his message to the gentiles where it was much better received.

I would say that Emperor Constantine had the biggest influence on the success of Christianity. It was Constantine that legitimized the religion which began the process of consolidating all the "stories" and picking the ones that they wanted to tell. Who really knows about the true Jesus. It is a matter of faith.

[Helm]

Jesus seemed to think that the world was about to end and that was really more the message he wanted to deliver to his own people. I don't think he ever had the next 2000 years or the entire non-Jewish world in mind.

[motiv-8]

Jesus seemed to think that the world was about to end and that was really more the message he wanted to deliver to his own people. I don't think he ever had the next 2000 years or the entire non-Jewish world in mind.

Paul also expected the world to end. The difference was that Jesus expected it to happen imminently, right up to the instant he died on the cross, while Paul admitted that he didn't have any idea when it would be, just that it was and that the people he was addressing should be prepared.