Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bobzammel · 02-07-2003, 01:09 PM

It is generally accepted today by most Christians that Paul is inspired and part of the canon of the bible. However, there seems to be strong evidence that Paul's views were not within the original concept of Christianity, and that he was rejected by most of the core apostles.

A few instances.

-Paul, in many of his letters, thinks that the Law is obselete, misqouting all sorts of scriptures to support his view. However Jesus seems to advocate the Law(Despite a few phrases here and there) He also encourages his believers to make burnt offerings, which would not make sense otherwise.

-Paul apparentally had disputes with Peter and James, as recorded in Galatians. Peter apparentally commends Paul in his second Epistle, but due to it's similarity to Jude it appears to be a second-century forgery.

-James appears to be directly attacking the POV of Paul in his epistle.

-Paul says he is rejected by Asia in one epistle. Revelation's Jesus, who is talking to the Asian churches, commends them for throwing out false apostles.

---That's not to say that Paul was completely wrong. Paul and Jesus's morals are more or less the same, except Paul appears far more judgemental and condemning. Attitudes towards labor, family etc. are also slightly different, but can be reconciled. It's in matters of relationship with other apostles/Churches and matters of the Law.

Perhaps the best site for this is www.judaismvschristianity.com, which argues that Jesus did not demolish the law but Paul messed it up. There are other sites which attack Paul's morals, ethics and theology compared to Jesus, but as I pointed out earlier those views can be reconciled.(For instance prayer in public--Jesus said do it privately, Paul said publicly. Jesus said that it's wrong if it's simply for show, not that you must enter your closet every time, if read in context. Besides since he constantly prayed in public that wouldn't make sense. Granted, Jesus *is* hypocritical on other points.)

Any thoughts?

Geoff Hudson · 02-07-2003, 02:39 PM

He was so false that he never existed.

He apparently had no mother and father - usually a Jew is a son of somebody or other.

He had no genealogy, although he claims to be a Hebrew of Hebrews.

Like Enoch, he disappears into thin air with no trace of his death.

It was necessary to fabricate a Paul who would preach equally fabricated doctrines of Jesus crucified, the cross, the atonement and justification by faith - all overlays on the preaching by John the prophet and James the lord of purification by the Spirit.

This was someone who was supposed to be a missionary to Gentiles, yet the first thing he did on entering a Gentile city was to preach to the local Jews in their synagogue.

I say James has been written out and the ficticius Paul written in.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson · 02-08-2003, 01:53 AM

And didn't Paul have a sister and a nephew who were nameless? Presumably, if the editor hadn't deleted these names they might have revealed the identity of the brother and uncle who knew Latin, was a Roman citizen because he had been made one (not born one), and really was a Hebrew of Hebrews (a son of Rechab, or a Rechabite). This was someone who had the status to merit a massive Roman military escort to take him from Jerusalem to Caesarea. This was no obscure heretical preacher just arrived in Jerusalem from the provinces. It was James the lord from Rome, the leader of what was then a large group of believers in the Spirit - a group with influence that went into the heart of Nero's palace. It's members included such people as Titus, the young son of Vespasian, and Epaphroditus, Nero's Greek secretary, and possibly even Seneca Nero's tutor.

Geoff

Kama · 02-10-2003, 05:41 PM

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI
Copyright � 1911
St.Paul
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm
Please read debunk and cite sources pls.
thx :notworthy

Geoff Hudson · 02-11-2003, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bobzammel
However, there seems to be strong evidence that Paul's views were not within the original concept of Christianity,

This is a standard editor's ploy. Create a ficticious character who is a substitute for the real character you want to write out of history. Then make the ficticious character teach the doctrines you want him to, if necessary in opposition to the original real character - imo in this case James the lord. James' epistle was originally consistent with the original Pauline epistles whose true author (imo) was James - a conclusion I have come to only in the last few weeks.

I think that James was also responsible for the epistle to the Hebrews. James had plenty of time to write - from when he knew John the prophet (who died approximately 36 CE) to the time when James was executed (imo beheaded as a Roman citizen) in 62 CE.

Geoff

Old Man · 02-13-2003, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Geoff Hudson
This is a standard editor's ploy. Create a ficticious character .....

And why should anyone believe you?

02-07-2003, 01:09 PM	#1
Bobzammel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 276	Paul the False Apostle? It is generally accepted today by most Christians that Paul is inspired and part of the canon of the bible. However, there seems to be strong evidence that Paul's views were not within the original concept of Christianity, and that he was rejected by most of the core apostles. A few instances. -Paul, in many of his letters, thinks that the Law is obselete, misqouting all sorts of scriptures to support his view. However Jesus seems to advocate the Law(Despite a few phrases here and there) He also encourages his believers to make burnt offerings, which would not make sense otherwise. -Paul apparentally had disputes with Peter and James, as recorded in Galatians. Peter apparentally commends Paul in his second Epistle, but due to it's similarity to Jude it appears to be a second-century forgery. -James appears to be directly attacking the POV of Paul in his epistle. -Paul says he is rejected by Asia in one epistle. Revelation's Jesus, who is talking to the Asian churches, commends them for throwing out false apostles. ---That's not to say that Paul was completely wrong. Paul and Jesus's morals are more or less the same, except Paul appears far more judgemental and condemning. Attitudes towards labor, family etc. are also slightly different, but can be reconciled. It's in matters of relationship with other apostles/Churches and matters of the Law. Perhaps the best site for this is www.judaismvschristianity.com, which argues that Jesus did not demolish the law but Paul messed it up. There are other sites which attack Paul's morals, ethics and theology compared to Jesus, but as I pointed out earlier those views can be reconciled.(For instance prayer in public--Jesus said do it privately, Paul said publicly. Jesus said that it's wrong if it's simply for show, not that you must enter your closet every time, if read in context. Besides since he constantly prayed in public that wouldn't make sense. Granted, Jesus is hypocritical on other points.) Any thoughts?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2003, 02:39 PM	#2
Geoff Hudson Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK Posts: 318	He was so false that he never existed. He apparently had no mother and father - usually a Jew is a son of somebody or other. He had no genealogy, although he claims to be a Hebrew of Hebrews. Like Enoch, he disappears into thin air with no trace of his death. It was necessary to fabricate a Paul who would preach equally fabricated doctrines of Jesus crucified, the cross, the atonement and justification by faith - all overlays on the preaching by John the prophet and James the lord of purification by the Spirit. This was someone who was supposed to be a missionary to Gentiles, yet the first thing he did on entering a Gentile city was to preach to the local Jews in their synagogue. I say James has been written out and the ficticius Paul written in. Geoff

02-08-2003, 01:53 AM	#3
Geoff Hudson Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK Posts: 318	And didn't Paul have a sister and a nephew who were nameless? Presumably, if the editor hadn't deleted these names they might have revealed the identity of the brother and uncle who knew Latin, was a Roman citizen because he had been made one (not born one), and really was a Hebrew of Hebrews (a son of Rechab, or a Rechabite). This was someone who had the status to merit a massive Roman military escort to take him from Jerusalem to Caesarea. This was no obscure heretical preacher just arrived in Jerusalem from the provinces. It was James the lord from Rome, the leader of what was then a large group of believers in the Spirit - a group with influence that went into the heart of Nero's palace. It's members included such people as Titus, the young son of Vespasian, and Epaphroditus, Nero's Greek secretary, and possibly even Seneca Nero's tutor. Geoff

02-10-2003, 05:41 PM	#4
Kama Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: swarga Posts: 19	The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI Copyright � 1911 St.Paul http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm Please read debunk and cite sources pls. thx :notworthy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.