Who is the founder of Christianity?

[YieldedOne]

Naidamar, you are SERIOUSLY missing the point here. No one is denying that, without Paul's missionary endeavors to the Gentiles, that Christianity wouldn't be what it is. I don't hear anyone denying that.

The CRUCIAL ISSUE is simply this: Did Paul REALLY HEAR from the Ascendent Jesus or NOT? Do we have reasons to believe so? If so, what are those reasons? What reasons work AGAINST that idea?

Both Christians AND Muslims believe that RIGHT NOW Jesus is in God's Presence. Both Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus will be coming back to be God's authorized leader of humanity. So, it's not out of the realm of possiblity FOR EITHER BELIEF SYSTEM that the Ascendent Jesus could have talked to him by the power of God, right?

Are you gonna tell me that it was ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the Jesus who was raised to God's Presence to talk to a human being still on earth, Naidamar?

 

[YieldedOne]

Conversion of Paul the Apostle

 

[Ramadhan]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]WHO WAS PAUL?
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Robert Holkerboer
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

(Adapted from Harris, The New Testament; Einhorn, The Jesus Mystery)
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Although he never met Jesus or witnessed any of the events of his life, and once mocked and persecuted Jesus’ disciples (he was, after all, a Pharisee as well as a Roman citizen and therefore a sworn enemy of Jesus), within a year or two of Jesus’ crucifixion on the road to Damascus he experienced an epiphany (spiritual vision) of the risen Christ that transformed him into the most influential figure of early Christianity. He was almost single-handedly responsible for transforming a Jewish sect into a world religion.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While the other three “pillars” of the early church – Peter (Cephas), James (the brother of Jesus), and John – remained in Jerusalem to convert the Jews, continuing to emphasize the importance of Torah observance, the focus of Paul’s ministry (even though he was a circumcised Jew of the tribe of Benjamin) was on the Gentiles and he preached the total irrelevancy of Torah observance: salvation is by faith, not by works.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He spoke and wrote in Greek, though it may not have been his mother language, and was equally fluent in Hebrew and Latin. Nearly one-third of the New Testament is ascribed to him (14 letters, although most scholars regard only 7 as genuinely Pauline):
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Paul

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1)

I Thessalonians – Young church doing very well; Timothy has checked on them and found no major disputes or controversies.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2)

I Corinthians – Many quarrels and factions, peculiar idea of baptism, challenges to Paul’s authority, Christians suing one another, some members visiting prostitutes, suggestion of incest. Paul gives balanced advice.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3)

II Corinthians – Paul savagely attacks pseudo-apostles in the church who challenge his authority and form their own doctrines.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4)

Galatians – Explosive, sarcastic rebuke of Christians who have capitulated to outside Judaizers. A declaration of independence from Mosaic Law and the influence of the synagogue.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5)

Romans – Longest of Paul’s letters, sent in advance of a visit. Deals extensively with Jew/Gentile controversy. Letter was possibly intended to circulate among a number of churches.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6)

Philemon – A private letter, raising the issue of Philemon’s escaped slave, whom Paul has come to love in prison.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]7)

Philippians – Written from prison. Paul has great affection for this church.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Probably Not by Paul

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8)

II Thessalonians – A controversial letter: parts are similar to I Thessalonians but other parts express contradictory theology.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]9)

Colossians – Paul never went there. Central purpose of letter is to combat a deviant form of Christianity.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Definitely Not by Paul

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10)

Ephesians – Not written to Ephesus (Paul spent two years there). Letter addressed to people Paul did not know personally. A forger appears to have used Colossians as a model for Ephesians.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11)

I Timothy – I and II Timothy and Titus are manuals for church officers to standardize church practice
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]12)

II Timothy – see above
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]13)

Titus – see above
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14)

Hebrews -- Even early Christians did not believe Paul wrote Hebrews.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[YieldedOne]

Please remember the Council of Jerusalem. If Paul was severly discordant with what Jesus actual disciples had heard from Jesus, THAT would have been the place to call him out, shut him up, and/or set him straight. But they didn't.

Doesn't that have serious implications?? Let's think like HISTORIANS here...
--------------------

The Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) is a name applied by historians to an Early Christian council that was held in Jerusalem and dated to around the year 50. It is considered by Catholics to be a prototype and forerunner of the later Ecumenical Councils. The council decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Mosaic law, including the rules concerning circumcision of males, however, the Council did retain the prohibitions against eating blood, or eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against fornication and idolatry. Descriptions of the council are found in Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 (in two different forms, the Alexandrian and Western versions) and also possibly in Paul's letter to the Galatians chapter 2. Some scholars dispute that Galatians 2 is about the Council of Jerusalem (notably because Galatians 2 describes a private meeting) while other scholars dispute the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles. Paul was likely an eyewitness and a major person in attendance whereas the writer of Luke-Acts probably wrote second-hand about the meeting he described in Acts 15.

 

[Ramadhan]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul remained celibate, even though it was extremely unusual for a Jewish male from a Pharisaic family to be unmarried after age 20 and the pressure to get married in Jewish culture was extremely strong (cf. the Talmud: “One who reaches the age of twenty and has not married lives all his days in sin”). A man who reached the age of 20 and was still unmarried could be forced by the courts to marry. (Note that Jesus too was unmarried at the age of 30.)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We learn some things about Paul in Acts, but much of this biographical material – that he was originally called Saul, that he was born in Tarsus (in modern Turkey), that he studied under the famous Rabbi Gamaliel, that he practiced the trade of leather worker or tent maker – is not confirmed by Paul himself in his letters, and some statements about him in Acts are contradicted by his own statements in the epistles. The author of Acts seems unaware of Paul’s epistles, his claims to apostleship, and his core message – that man is saved by faith and not by Torah observance. The book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul under house arrest in Rome; we are not told what became of him, but according to legend Nero beheaded him. (Nero himself committed suicide in 68 CE.)
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul, for his part, seems largely unaware of Jesus’ life and teachings. [1] His worldview is centered on the crucifixion and resurrection – proven to him by his vision of the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Although he did not meet the standards set by the first generation of Christians for apostleship (an apostle was one called by Jesus as a disciple and who witnessed the risen Christ), he insisted that he was a true apostle on the basis of his personal vision on the road to Damascus. [2]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul’s conversion occurred in c. 32-33 CE. He spent the next three years in Arabia (we are not told what he did there). He returns to attend a conference in Jerusalem. We next meet him when Barnabas calls him to go to Antioch (45-46 CE). We aren’t told what happened in the intervening years, or why 15 years elapsed between his conversion and his first missionary journey.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul’s theology was not systematic but occasional, i.e., a response to specific situations. He never ceased to believe that “the end is near,” which accounts for the urgency of his message. He believed that man was totally depraved, but justified by faith in Christ. Salvation was the result of faith, not works. The law of love makes Mosaic Law obsolete. He stresses God’s redeeming grace and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. [3]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (c. 200 CE) provides a physical description: “And he saw Paul coming, a man small in size, with a bald head and crooked legs; in good health; with eyebrows that met and a rather prominent nose; full of grace, for sometimes he looked like a man and sometimes he looked like an angel.”
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul was candid about his shortcomings, acknowledging his unprepossessing physical appearance and his speaking skills, which apparently left much to be desired. He also speaks of an unidentified “thorn in the flesh” (sometimes translated “a sharp physical pain”) that he strove to overcome.[4] He lost his temper on not a few occasions. He could be egotistical, self-pitying, stubborn, and defensive. Paul’s defensiveness seems to stem from three biographical facts:
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a)

He had a past as a Pharisee and persecutor of Jesus and his followers
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]b)

He was not an apostle as apostles defined the term
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]c)

He was not a member of the Jerusalem inner circle of church leaders
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That said, his spiritual gifts were legendary. As a Pharisee, Paul had been tireless in his Torah observance. As a converted Christian, his personal energy continued unabated, as evidenced by his exhausting travel schedule (he made five separate multi-city missionary journeys), his prolific writing, his emotional intensity, and his brilliant mind.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For a chronological sequence of Paul’s life, see Harris, The New Testament, p. 308.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Notes
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][1] Nor is Paul mentioned in any of the gospels, which were written long after his death. In I Thess. 1:5 Paul uses the term ‘gospel’ 20 years before the first gospel (Mark) was written.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][2] Paul refers to this experience in the epistles but never describes what actually happened.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][3] Many have seen the Protestant Reformation as a revival of Pauline theology. The Roman Catholic Church came to emphasize good works and church ritual. Paul treated both with contempt.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][4] Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” has been variously identified as lameness, poor vision, epilepsy, and homosexuality, but these are all guesses.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Ramadhan]

THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF PAUL




source: http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/excommunication_of_paul.htm


THE EXCOMMUNICATION OF MR PAUL

At the end of 1992 a book was published titled, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered" by Eisenman and Wise (Element books). This book offers fifty excerpts from long suppressed segments of these historic documents, placed in caves almost 2000 years ago and not discovered until 1947 and 1952.

In 1952 a team of scholars was appointed to piece together and decipher this wealth of material. But, instead of disseminating it to the world, these men withheld it, publishing only skeleton portions.

In autumn of 1991 this monopoly was broken by the Huntington's Library in California. The library announced that it would release photographs of the scrolls, which it had secured from authorities at the time of the 1967 six day war. They had argued that at such an unstable time the scrolls could be in jeopardy of destruction and that photograph copies should be held in America for safe-keeping.

The series of scholars, Catholics and Jewish, who previously had held exclusive control over the scrolls, long maintained that there was nothing of interest in the unreleased materials. They said that no light would be shed on the early days of Christianity. They were wrong.

One portion, numbered 40266, is titled by Eisenman and Wise, "The Foundation of Righteousness (The End of the Damascus Document: An excommunication text)."

It appears to be the excommunication of Paul from the Christian Community. The document was prepared for a convocation of the followers of Christ at the time of the Pentecost, "to curse those who depart to the right (or to the left) of the Torah," that is, the law of Moses.

The scroll fragments praise God. "You are all, everything is in your hand and (You are) the maker of everything, who established the peoples according to their families and their national languages."

They praise God and speak of the maryadas or "boundary markers laid down for us." Those who over-step these boundaries are those whose "soul has rejected the Foundations of Righteousness."

Paul was such a man. Elsewhere he is described as "the Lying adversary," and the "Lying Spouter" who "rejects the law in the midst of the whole congregation", "the Tongue" and the "Scoffer/Comedian" who "poured over Israel the waters of lying."

The authors of the book believe that "the priest commanding the Many" who delivers this excommunication judgement was James, the apostle often referred to as James the Just, the bishop of Jerusalem and the brother of Jesus.

In twisted logic involving blessing and cursing, Paul defends himself in his letters to the Galatians (3:11-13). Paul argues that he is redeemed in his transgressions against the teachings of Jesus, because Christ himself became cursed by the law . Paul is confusing the law of Moses with the law of the Romans and his own law.

In the Acts of the Apostles Paul writes of hurrying off to Jerusalem to be on time for an annual Pentecostal meeting as described in the scrolls. Eisenman and Wise state that "the Acts' picture of the Pentecost can be seen as the mirror reversal of the Pentecost being pictured here." Rather than taking his contribution to Jerusalem Paul was actually about to face excommunication from the community he sought to control.

The authors conclude saying, "The implications are quite startling and far-reaching. One thing is sure: one has in these texts a better exposition of what was really going on in 'the wilderness' in these times so pivotal for Western civilisation, than in any other parallel accounts."

 

[YieldedOne]

Naidamar's quote:
Paul, for his part, seems largely unaware of Jesus’ life and teachings. His worldview is centered on the crucifixion and resurrection – proven to him by his vision of the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Although he did not meet the standards set by the first generation of Christians for apostleship (an apostle was one called by Jesus as a disciple and who witnessed the risen Christ), he insisted that he was a true apostle on the basis of his personal vision on the road to Damascus.

1) This validates what Paul himself said: that he wasn't taught by other disciples, but by Christ himself.

2) This HEIGHTENS what I've been saying. It should have been EASY for the actual disciples at the Council of Jerusalem to note discordant assertions that Paul was making, but they didn't. Meaning they did NOT see what Paul taught as fundamentally opposed to Jesus' life and teachings as those Disciples understood them.

 

[Ramadhan]

Paul or Jesus?
by Ronda Zeoli

In order to understand the lies and deceptions of Christianity, we
must start at the beginning of Christianity. It will come to a
surprise to many, I'm sure, that time and time again one can find
Paul being credited as to the start of Christianity. After all,
over half of the New Testament was written by Paul or his followers.

What is the problem with this? Paul was a self proclaimed Apostle,
never was he appointed by Yahshua like the REAL twelve were. Paul
NEVER even laid eyes on Yahshua.

Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of
being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now
reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Yahshua. This
gave Pauline Christianity an awesome authority that proved
attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul's new doctrine,
however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the
Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Yahshuas' atoning
death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul
was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus' brother),
Peter, and John to explain his doctrine.

Paul was carefully positioned by Satan to lead the masses astray.
The Most High allowed it as a way to test HIS people. Satan's plan
has worked out rather well for him throughout the years, thanks to
Paul. Notice how churchianity adores him and puts great focus in
his teachings. Although, it remains to be seen who has the last
laugh!

Again, what is the problem with this? Paul taught a different
gospel than that of Yahshua. Yahshua came to fulfill the laws of
the Torah, and therefore, the Most High. He came to lead the people
back to the Most High God.

Paul was basically the inventor of fast food religion, where it's
okay to spend the week in sin as long as you ask for forgiveness at
the end of the week. Paul didn't teach people how to have a one on
one relationship with the Most High. He didn't teach people about
the Laws of the Torah and their importance, or the importance of
keeping the feasts. In fact, he taught against them instead.

Furthermore, Paul introduced pagan Mithraic beliefs and practices.
The facts on this topic are very revealing and important to be aware
of since it is quite possible that a fake "Jesus" could come back to
lead the masses straight to hell during tribulation.

Paul writes about the fake "Jesus". Will you know the difference
between the real one and the fake?





"All great lies are interwoven with golden threads of truth"

Who was Paul?

Since Paul is so widely credited with starting Christianity, let's
take a moment to examine Paul. Paul, also known as Saul from
Tarsus, the very center of Baal-worship.

Paul proclaimed himself to be an Apostle of the Gentiles, but was
he? Yahshua chose 12 disciples for 12 tribes. He never spoke of a
13th. He did, however, speak of another who would come in his own
name and be accepted over him.

Who has 13 books in the New Testament even though he never set eyes
on the son of the Most High God? Who is so widely accepted and
glorified all throughout Christianity? Most would rather quote Paul
than one of the real Apostles. While the REAL Apostles wrote about
the life of Yahshuah, Paul wrote of his own view point and personal
ideology.

Yahshua also warned us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, of
which Paul was one. He warned against and condemned the Pharisees
repeatedly. Pharisee Paul NEVER preached against them.

More from http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/zeoli.htm

 

[YieldedOne]

WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!!! You just delete posts at your whim...when they go against your sources?

Naidamar, you KNOW that ain't right! :raging:

You wanna play it that way, fine. But don't expect me (or anyone else) to take your argumentation seriously.

Shameful.

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 1)

he Anti-Christ Paul

by
Abdullah Smith
(He is a new convert to Islam)​

[Part I] [Part II]​

Follow Jesus or Follow Paul?

The New Testament gives us a choice; either we follow Jesus Christ, or the anti-Christ Paul of Tarsus: Each one demands his followers to accept his teachings:

Be ye followers of me… that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. (1 Corinthians 11:1)

“If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed” (John 8:31)

Amazing, the former preached against the teachings of Jesus, and the latter, (Jesus) teaches that salvation is only attained by following him. According to Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:20-21, and Micah 6:7-8, a man is responsible for his own sin. Jesus rejected the Pauline doctrine of “vicarious atonement”. Compare the two passages below:

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without sheddingofblood is no remission. (Hebrews 9:22)

Jesus was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin? And Jesus answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation. (Gospel of the Nazorenes, Lection 33, verses 1-2)
Jesus was circumcised, Paul rejected circumcision:

This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Genesis 17:14)

When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God commanded him. (Genesis 21:4)

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (Exodus 12:48)

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him,he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. (Luke 2:21)

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1)

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:23)

The Jewish Law commands the circumcision on the eighth day. The reason why Christians are not circumcised is because they follow Paul. They have broken the covenant of Circumcision according to Jesus himself (5:19)

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (Galatians 5:6, KJV)

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (NIV)

The Talmud states the following to those who break the Covenant:

"The one who voids the covenant of Abraham has no portion in the world to come (Avot 3:16).

Christians may not have any “portion in the world to come” because they have totally rejected the Message of Jesus, replacing the Gospel with the Gospel of Paul.

"The Christianity which the nations claim to follow is the religion of Paul, who is admittedly the chief and almost the only theologian that the Church recognizes. Because of his betrayal of the Master's teachings, the vision of true Christianity has been so dimmed that men have been able to defend war and a host of other evils, such as flesh eating and slavery, on the authority of the Bible." (Christ or Paul? Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore)

"Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught.... For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message.... That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world.... The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness." (ibid, Rev. V.A. Holmes Gore)

"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 causes of the principal defects of Christian theology." (Ernest Renan, Saint Paul)

"There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus.... There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus.... It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus... was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith. (Androcles and the Lion, George Bernard Shaw)

The Christian missionaries today are preaching the Gospel of Paul, and rejecting the Gospel of Jesus. Paul emphasized that salvation is attained through “faith and grace” which is blatantly opposite of what Jesus taught.

"Paul... did not desire to know Christ.... Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded.... What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?.... The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority.... The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it." (The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer)

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost neverquotes Jesus in his letters and writings." (Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330)

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 2)

Saul/Paul had set out initially to subvert Jesus’ teachings. Later he used his new doctrines to undermine the power of the Jewish church as well as the defied Roman Emperor. Paul sought to torpedo Judaism in its calcified form, its narrow interpretation of the Judaic law. Jesus had initiated this process but did not subvert the law. Paul had no such inhibitions; he rejected wholesale many fundamental laws of God.In the attempt Paul succeeded in undermining both the Jewish and Nazarene teachings. He steered Christ’s teachings away from monotheism and from the Jews, (the lost sheep of Israel) and directed these teachings in a corrupted form to Non-Jews…As Jesus had not succeeded during his mission in converting the majority of his Jewish brothers and sister to his divinely inspired interpretations of Judaism, Paul ensured that after Jesus had departed, that Jews would not be temped to follow Jesus’ Teachings. To this end, Paul so adulterated Jesus’ life, purpose, mission and claims to make the new dogma (Paul’s version of Jesus’ teachings) repugnant to the Jews. (Farouk Hosein, Fundamentalism Revisited, Eniath’s Printing Company Trinidad, p. 49)

The Jewish Christians reacted strongly to Paul, they rejected his pagan ideas of the “divinity of Christ”, and they rejected the concept of the “divine sonship” of Jesus, whom they regarded as a Prophet and Messenger.

The Jewish Christians rejected Paul’s version of ‘Christ’, to them the ‘Christ’ was anointed and fully human. Many characters in the Bible were called ‘Christ’ (anointed) but they were never divine ‘god-men’. Paul changed the original meaning of this title to make it conform to the Gentile thinking. The Romans considered their Emperors to be the ‘sons of God’, or personages of the sun. Similarly, the Hindus consider their heroes to be the ‘incarnations’ of God.

“A true Jew would have immediately recognized the teaching of Jesus as a reaffirmation of what Moses had taught. But to many a pagan, it must have seemed new and strange and perhaps a little complicated. Most of the pagans still believed in a multitude of gods who, it was thought, mixed freely with human beings, mated with them, and took part in every sphere of human life. To the common people of Greece, any description of Jesus must have seemed like a description of one of their gods, and they were probably quite ready to accept Jesus in this capacity. There was always room for one more god. However, the actual teaching of Jesus negated all their gods, since it affirmed the Divine Unity”. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus: Prophet of Islam 1992 edition, p. 62)

Paul’s reasoning had two major consequences. It not only resulted in further changes being made to what Jesus had taught, but also prepared the way for completely changing people’s ideas of who Jesus was. He was being transformed from a man to a conception in people’s minds. Divinity had been attributed to Jesus even whenhe was on earth by some of those who marveled at his words and miracles, and who, mistakenly, considered him to be more than a prophet. Some of his enemies had also spread the rumor that he was the “son of God”, hoping to rouse the orthodox Jew’s anger against him for associating himself with God. Thus, even before he disappeared, there had been a tendency to obscure his true nature and ascribe godhood to Jesus. This imaginary figure of Christ, who apparently had the power to annul what Jesus had previously taught, was clearly no ordinary mortal, and, inevitably, became confused by many with God. Thus, this imaginary figure became an object of worship, and was associated with God. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, p. 70)

The great scholar Mawdudi alludes to the deification of Jesus by the “Christians”.

The false tendencies, born of centuries of deviations, ignorance and malpractice, now took another form. Though they accepted their Prophets during their lives and practiced their teachings, after their deaths they introduced their own distorted ideas into their religions. They adopted novel methods of worshipping God; some even took to the worship of their Prophets. They made the Prophets the incarnations of God or the sons of God; some associated their Prophets with God in His Divinity. (Towards Understanding Islam, p. 39)
Jesus taught Salvation comes through Faith and Works, Paul distorted it:

Jesus taught salvation is attained by keeping the commandments, physical prayer, fasting, and observing the Law of Moses. Paul neglected these commands and distorted the Path to Salvation preached by Jesus.

Paul said that “salvation comes through faith and grace” which is exactly what the missionaries are saying today. Let us read the words of Jesus.

 

[YieldedOne]

For everyone ELSE who wants to really think about this subject:

To me, a person has to explain Paul's ACCEPTANCE at the Council of Jerusalem by the others. To the best of our historiographical understanding, we know that there WAS a Jerusalem council where some of Jesus' disciples WERE there. And we know that Paul WAS in attendance.

If Paul was so off with his teachings, why wasn't he directly reprimanded and anathematized there?

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 3)

Fasting is commanded:

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. (Matthew 17:21)
And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29)
Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the children of Israel were assembled with fasting, and with sackclothes, and earth upon them. (Nehemiah 9:1)
And in every province, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, [there was] great mourning among the Jews, and fasting, and weeping, and wailing; and many lay in sackcloth and ashes. (Esther 4:3)
But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing [was] sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. (Psalms 35:13)
When I wept, [and chastened] my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. (Psalms 69:10)
My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness. (Psalms 109:24)
Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye [even] to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: (Joel 2:12)
Christians do not fast, Muslims fast during the holy month of Ramadan, so they must be considered the true followers of Jesus. The (only) excuse Christians have for not fasting is echoing the teachings of Paul, who discarded these laws altogether!

Physical Prayer is commanded:
The Prophets of God prayed with their forehead touching the ground. Likewise, the Muslims also pray in this manner:
And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, (Genesis 17:3)
And I bowed down my head, and worshipped the LORD, and blessed the LORD God of my master Abraham, which had led me in the right way to take my master's brother's daughter unto his son. (Genesis 24:48)
And he said, Nay; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? (Joshua 5:14)

And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes: (Daniel 9:3)
And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt]. (Matthew 26:39)
Paul rejected these laws; he disobeyed the physical prayer to Yahweh. He distorted the prayer and directed it towards His Prophet, Jesus!
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; (Philemon 2:10)
This verse is absolutely outrageous and repulsive, totally disgusting! The Old Testament teaches that Prayer is due to God alone:
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. (Isaiah 45:23)
It seems that Christians have abandoned this verse, following the teaching of Paul by worshipping Jesus! According to the Holy Quran, associating partners (in worship) with God is unforgivable:
Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. (4:48)
In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things." (5:17)
They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (5:72)
Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (5:75)
They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him). (9:31)

 

[Ramadhan]

[FONT=&quot](part iv)
[FONT=&quot]Jesus Forbade the Gentiles:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 10:5-6)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul rejected this command of NOT preaching to the Gentiles, they were restricted. Paul openly preached among the Gentiles, a totally different religion:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For I speak to you [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (Romans 11:13)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Don’t be like the pagans![/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. (Matthew 6:7-8)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out [/FONT][FONT=&quot]before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (Leviticus 20:23)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Church Father Iranaeus condemned Paul for inventing ‘Christianity’ from pagan beliefs:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Iranaeus believed in One God and supported the doctrine of the manhood of Jesus. He bitterly criticized Paul for being responsible for injecting doctrines of the pagan religions and Platonic philosophy into Christianity. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, 1992 edition, p. 77)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The pagans used to wear tattoos and eat swine, the unclean pig. The “Christians” are imitating them today:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:28)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they [are] unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:7-8)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Bible says that decorating trees is PAGAN; this refers to the “Christmas tree”.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For the customs of the people [are] vain: for [one] cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. (Jeremiah 10:3-4)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[YieldedOne]

Naidamar quoting:
Jesus taught salvation is attained by keeping the commandments, physical prayer, fasting, and observing the Law of Moses. Paul neglected these commands and distorted the Path to Salvation preached by Jesus.

Then explain the Council of Jerusalem! If you read the article about it, you would see that it was a CONSENSUS of the Council to NOT fully observe the Law of Moses. It wasn't just Paul. That's INACCURATE to say!

The Council of Jerusalem (or Apostolic Conference) is a name applied by historians to an Early Christian council that was held in Jerusalem and dated to around the year 50. It is considered by Catholics to be a prototype and forerunner of the later Ecumenical Councils. The council decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Mosaic law, including the rules concerning circumcision of males, however, the Council did retain the prohibitions against eating blood, or eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against fornication and idolatry.

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 5)

[FONT=&quot]Paul corrupted the teachings of Jesus claiming that his supposed “sacrifice on the cross” is the only way to salvation. We have already seen how this concept is false, according to the Bible itself, and the Gospel of the Nazarenes. [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After Jesus’s time, there came to be two sects of Christians: those who followed St. Paul (who is the real founder of modern Christianity) and those who followed the Apostles of Jesus. In course of time, the Pauline sect overshadowed the Apostles’ sect. So Paul’s own writings, as well as the Gospels written under his influence, came to be accepted by the later Christian Church as Scripture.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=8061[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Gospels are Hellenistic religious narratives in the tradition of the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which constituted the “Scriptures” to those Greek-speaking Christians who wrote the four canonical Gospels and who appealed to it, explicitly or implicitly, in nearly every paragraph they wrote. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 16)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The New Testament was written under the influence of Paul, the four Gospel writers were Gentile converts to Pauline Christianity. Hence, there is nothing Jewish about the New Testament, it was solely written for Pauline Christians whose background was pagan. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Hebrew Scriptures of the Nazarenes and Ebionites were destroyed by the Pauline Church. The original sayings of Jesus were lost forever. The New Testament today exists in Greek, and not Hebrew or Aramaic, the spoken tongues of Jesus. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Gospel of Matthew seems to be the “most Jewish” book in the New Testament, [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Luke was a Gentile and not eye-witness[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mark was Barnabas’s nephew and not eye-witness[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]John was martyred decades before the Gospel (bearing his name) was even written. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Nevertheless, the four Gospels are NOT mentioned by name before the year 190 CE. We have scholarly quotations to back this claim.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Unfortunately, the sources we have on Jesus are very scarce and scanty, Ignatius (died 110 CE) records the baptism of Jesus but he fails to record any thing else. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Apostolic Church Fathers never mention the miracles in the Gospels; they fail to mention the four Gospels by name. The story of the “resurrection” (as told in the Gospels) was fabricated later because they fail to record it. The seven epistles of Ignatius fall into the category of silence, they speak nothing about Jesus. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul has written his own personal account of the “resurrection” which contradicts the Gospels. In conclusion, the Gospels are fabricated because Philo Judaeus and many other historians fail to mention their supernatural events.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The New Testament makes it clear that nobody witnessed the “resurrection”, the disciples never witnessed the “resurrection”, they all ‘forsook him and fled’ at Gethsemane.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 6)

[FONT=&quot]Paul says Jesus Christ is a mystery![FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, (Ephesians 3:4)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds: (Colossians 4:3)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to Paul, Jesus was not a real person; he was a spiritual conception in people’s minds:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul’s reasoning had two major consequences. It not only resulted in further changes being made to what Jesus had taught, but also prepared the way for completely changing people’s ideas of who Jesus was. He was being transformed from a man to a conception in people’s minds. (Muhammad Ataur-Raheem, Jesus Prophet of Islam, p. 70)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul did not care about the historical Jesus, whom he never met. He transformed Jesus into a ‘god-man’.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]His reluctance to say very much at all about Jesus the man, in his letters, he quoted hardly any of the sayings of Jesus, in his apostleship to the Gentiles. Jesus, according to the flesh that is historical Jesus, did not serve his purpose[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pauline Christology has only minimally to do with the actual historical Jesus. Hence, the faith in Christ as held by primitive preaching led by Paul was something new in comparison with the preaching of Jesus, it was a new type of religion based god-man of Pagan Religion.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](The Hijacking of Christianity, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Al Haj A.D. Ajijola, p. 4)[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[YieldedOne]

Naidamar, you can post all the lengthy articles you want, homie. You still ain't getting away from the facts, namely that Paul was FULLY ACCEPTED at the Council of Jerusalem where some of the actual disciples of Jesus were in attendance. That greatly damages the idea that Paul's teaching was completely antithetical to what the Disciples actually heard Jesus say during his earthly time with them. This would mean that the Disciples in attendance BELIEVED Paul's claim about experiencing the Risen Jesus!

 

[Ramadhan]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+3]Paul's Bungling Attempt
At Sounding Pharisaic
​

excerpt from: The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity
[SIZE=+1]by Hyam Maccoby[/SIZE]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Some passages in Paul's Epistles have been thought to be typically Pharisaic simply because their argument has a legalistic air. When these passages are critically examined, however, the superficiality of the legal colouring soon appears, and it is apparent that the use of illustrations from law is merely a vague, rhetorical device, without any real legal precision, such as is found in the Pharisaic writings even when the legal style is used for homiletic biblical exegesis. An example from Romans is the following:[/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]You cannot be unaware, my friends -- I am speaking to those who have some knowledge of law -- that a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer. For example, a married woman is by law bound to her husband while he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the obligations of the marriage-law. If, therefore, in her husband's lifetime she consorts with another man, she will incur the charge of adultery; but if her husband dies she is free of the law, and she does not commit adultery by consorting with another man. So you, my friends, have died to the law by becoming identified with the body of Christ, and accordingly you have found another husband in him who rose from the dead, so that we may bear fruit for God. While we lived on the level of our lower nature, the sinful passions evoked by the law worked in our bodies, to bear fruit for death. But now, having died to that which held us bound, we are discharged from the law, to serve God in a new way, the way of the spirit, in contrast to the old way, the way of a written code. (Romans 7: 1-6)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The above passage is remarkably muddle-headed. Paul is trying to compare the abrogation of the Torah and the advent of the new covenant of Christianity with a second marriage contracted by a widow. But he is unable to keep clear in his mind who it is that corresponds to the wife and who to the husband -- or even who is supposed to have died, the husband or the wife. It seems that the correspondence intended is the following: the wife is the Church; the former husband is the Torah, and the new husband is Christ. Paul tells us that a wife is released by the death of her husband to marry a new husband; this should read, therefore, in the comparison, that the Church was freed, by the death of the Torah, to marry Christ. Instead, it is the wife-Church that dies ('you, my friends, have died to the law by becoming identified with the body of Christ') and there is even some play with the idea that the new husband, Christ, has died. The only term in the comparison that is not mentioned as having died is the Torah; yet this is the only thing that would make the comparison valid.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On the other hand, there is also present in the passage an entirely different idea: that a person becomes free of legal obligations after his or her own death. This indeed seems to be the theme first announced: 'that a person is subject to the law so long as he is alive, and no longer.' The theme of the widow being free to marry after the death of her first husband is quite incompatible with this; yet Paul confuses the two themes throughout -- so much so that at one point he even seems to be talking about a widow and a husband who are free to marry each other and have acceptable children because both widow and new husband are dead. Confusion cannot be worse confounded than this.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thus what we have here is a case of someone trying to construct a legal analogy and failing miserably because of his inability to think in the logical manner one expects of a legal expert. The passage thus does not prove that Paul had Pharisee training -- just the contrary. What we can say, however, is that Paul is here trying to sound like a trained Pharisee. He announces in a somewhat portentous way that what he is going to say will be understood only by those who 'have some knowledge of law', and he is clearly intending to display legal expertise. It is only natural that Paul, having claimed so often to have been trained as a Pharisee, should occasionally attempt to play the part, especially when speaking or writing for people who would not be able to detect any shortcomings in his performance. In the event, he has produced a ludicrous travesty of Pharisee thinking. In the whole of Pharisee literature, there is nothing to parallel such an exhibition of lame reasoning.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What Paul is saying, in a general way, is that death dissolves legal ties. Therefore, the death of Jesus and the symbolic death of members of the Church by identifying themselves with Jesus' sacrifice all contribute to a loosening of ties with the old covenant. This general theme is clear enough; it is only when Paul tries to work out a kind of legal conceit or parable, based on the law of marriage and remarriage, that he ties himself in knots. Thus he loses cogency just where a Pharisee training, if he had ever had one, would have asserted itself; once more, he is shown to have the rhetorical style of the Hellenistic preachers of popular Stoicism, not the terse logic of the rabbis.[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Ramadhan]

(part 1)

Paul and Marcion
​

One is informed by Acts that St Paul's early day stance was as "Saul, the Christian persecutor". Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen's stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?

Paul's role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the Savior's death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem ("at the feet of Gamaliel" – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the Savior was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.

Would not Saul, a young religious hothead ("exceedingly zealous of the traditions" – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC's blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during "passion week", surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?

Paul, another "witness for Jesus", saw and heard nothing!

Two Pauls – One Illusion

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. Biblical scholars are only too familiar with the conundrum that chunks of Paul's own story, gleaned from the epistles, are incompatible with the tale recorded in Acts but live with the "divine mystery" of it all. Perish the thought that they might recognize the whole saga is a work of pious fiction.

Acts

The Paul of Acts is a team player. His conversion on the road to Damascus is so important that it is repeated three times (son et lumiere). From a previous state of error (as "Saul", the persecuting Jewish zealot) he is brought into the loving embrace of the fledgling church.

Now part of the brethren ("with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem" - 9.28), he is "managed" by the elders. Disciples "took him" from Damascus (9.25) and Barnabas "brought him" to the apostles (9.27). They "brought him" to Caesarea and then they "sent him" to Tarsus. Barnabas "brought" Paul back to Antioch (11.26) and then with him was "sent" to Jerusalem with famine relief (11.30) – (as it happens, a visit to Jerusalem completely unknown to Paul himself).

Eventually the brethren "send" Paul on his first missionary journey (13.4). As a missionary, Paul is very much on the collective message:

"And as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established." (Acts 16.4,5).

From Thessalonica, Paul is "sent away" to Berea by the brethren (17.10). He is also "sent away" by sea and "brought" to Athens (17.14,15). In Cenchrea, Paul even takes a Jewish vow and shaves his head! (18.18).

Though his name is cited in Acts 177 times, "Paul" is never coupled with the familiar honorific "apostle". The closest Acts comes to bestowing the title is 14.14 where his name follows Barnabas and the plural is used. In every other instance, Paul is an entity quite separate from, and implicitly subordinate to, the apostles. The slight is striking, given that Acts was supposedly written by Luke, Paul's companion and admirer.