THE APOSTLE PAUL WAS NOT A REAL APOSTLE

Lies and blashpemy. People spreading this garbage are going to have a rough going on judgment day, to tell people that Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit is not scripture is bordering on blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

This video completely refutes the assertion that Paul was a false apostle.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Last Edited by Needles Eye on 12/09/2012 03:17 PM

The Lord saves murders and adulteres, and people who persecuted christians and jews, just like Paul.

if Jesus couldn't save bad people, what would be the point???

3 33 3


replies views rating, had to click it!

3 who rated so far i meant

This is so wrong. In Acts 9: 15 The LORD JESUS said that Paul was a chosen vessel to proclaim the good news of our SAVIOR to the Gentiles, kings and the Jews I thank the LORD for Paul.

Because this is important.

I wonder why Paul never mentions a word Jesus supposedly said, or a thing Jesus supposedly did.

As usual, you are wrong.



"Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.

(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

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.

And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.

And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do."

I agree. We were not there in those early years. We rely on the early witnesses for such truths as the virgin birth, and who were accepted apostles. Paul was accepted. His writing is in harmony with the rest; very much so.

Say it NAM. Can your massive blowhard ego allow you to say "I was wrong."?

Bet you can't.

no
Paul was a Beattle

geesh

The following is from the Book not an opinion;

John 5:43 in his own name vs. Father's name
Rev 2:1-3, Acts 19:8-10 false apostle
Acts 9:26+ rejected by apostles

Jesus vs Paul
Mat 13:41-43 end sequence
I Thes 4:13-18 rapture

Mat 5:17-10 fulfill law
Rom 6:14, I Co 9:20-21 not under law

Rev 2:14 meat to idols
I Cor 10:28-30 Ok to

John 5:43 father's name
Cor, Tim, Eph, Gal, etc. (first verse of each); I, Paul an apostle

Pharisees & Sadducees
Mat 3:7, 12:34, 23:33, 16:11-12
Mk 8:15, Acts 26:5

Quotes
Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus - Thomas Jefferson

Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ. Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ
- Will Durant

Where possible, Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount and had taught his disciples the 'Our Father.' Even when they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord - Albert Schweitzer

Paul substituted 'faith in Christ' for the 'Christ-like life.' - Walter Kaufmann

If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no further than Paul
(Paraphrased) - Jeremy Bentham

Paul's words are not the words of God. They are the words of Paul - a vast difference. - Bishop John S Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark

My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts - the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to exercise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document. - Carl Sagan

You can argue with the Book if you want.

paul was the 12th apostle that the lord picked to replace Judas.

Mathias was the real false apostle. They cast lots for him to be picked (divination) and after that you never hear another thing about him.

I thought he spewed false shit constantly just to piss off the crazies here?

Faul was the Walrus.. Maxwell has moved to Washington.

You know, the crazies like this nutter here^

Paul will remain in the history books of the future as the founding father of P.R. and Advertising on a grand scale :)

fortunately the days of inquisition are over :)))
one has to first have a pure heart, and then he will know truth in every book, bible included.
the other way it never works, it only leads one farther away from the heart which is the true abode of christ.

Last Edited by VenusRose on 11/28/2012 02:52 AM

Jesus blood found and tested in lab,mother was a virgin,cause DNA of Jesus tested blood says "Father not human"
.
here is link
.
[link to www.youtube.com]
.
.

Actually, a more correct translation of Acts 9:15 is that Paul's given mission was to "Israel’s kings and sons in the nations". Which is spot on to Jesus declared words that He came for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Please see [link to oldangel.com] for a great and informative look at the Greek.
And I agree, with your assessment of Paul.

To the OP - contemplate why you choose to believe as Hitler. He despised the Apostle Paul. So did those whom Christ Jesus said were of their father the devil.

Rev 2:14 meat to idols
I Cor 10:28-30 Ok to

Revelation 2:15 "Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.

Do you really believe that Jesus is talking about physically eating physical food here? Specifically considering that He stated in Matthew:

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’”
"Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’”

WHATEVER GOES IN THE MOUTH IS ELIMINATED. So Jesus is not speaking about physical food sacrificed to idols.

Paul said the same thing - physical food sacrificed to an idol HAS NO EFFECT on the food nor the body. It gets eliminated from the body. But BECAUSE food that is sacrificed to an idol is actually sacrificed to DEMONS, we should not consume it IF IT is brought to OUR ATTENTION.

People that TWIST scripture wrangle it to their own destruction. They cannot discern that Jesus is NOT talking about physical food sacrificed to idols in Revelation. And because they can't discern that, they automatically assume that Paul, who IS talking about physical food sacrificed to idols, is contradictory.

I thought Maxwell was over in omro?

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus" - Thomas Jefferson

Please tell me OP why any Christian would CARE what Thomas Jefferson, a non-Christian, thought of Paul? Thomas Jefferson thought all the apostles to be stupid and rogues.

You are very correct OP.

[link to www.judaismvschristianity.com]

[link to www.jesuswordsonly.com]

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: Revelation 2:2

Paul and the Ephesians

Now, look at what was said to the church that we know Paul had been involved in... Ephesus. Among the things that Yahshua commended the Ephesian church for doing right, is this quote:

"I know your works, your labor, and your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars." Rev. 2:2

Yes. I have no doubts Yahshua was referring to Paul and his companions, and that his claim of apostleship, as well as his doctrine, were false! Hang in there and consider all the facts with me for a minute. Here are four of them... with the silver bullet coming shortly after.

1. Paul's doctrine on the foreknowledge of God is not only groundless (because he had to abuse Scripture to support it), it is blasphemous,
because it outright accuses God of unrighteousness. (See previous chapters)
2. We have record of Paul claiming to be an apostle to the Ephesians.

"Paul, an apostle of Yahshua by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus," Ephesians 1:1

3. We have no record of anyone else claiming to be an apostle to anyone anywhere, not even to the Ephesians.
4. Paul and his doctrine had troubles being accepted in Ephesus.

"And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the way before the multitude..." Acts 19:8,9

Remember, this is recorded from Luke’s point of view and he believed Paul's doctrine was "the Way". Notice that those who rejected Paul are men of the synagogue and not atheists or pagans. If these men had stood up in front of the synagogue and said, "Paul's doctrine is flawed. He is a false apostle, and a liar", Luke would no doubt have seen this as "speaking evil of the Way".

If these four reasons are not enough to seriously call into question Paul's status as an apostle there is one more. It is a most interesting quote from Paul's own pen that finally seals the fate of his supposed apostleship. It comes from his second letter to Timothy, written during the same Neronian persecution in which John was given the Revelation. This letter is believed by many scholars to contain the last recorded words of Paul. Here he makes a short statement of lament that seems to have gone unnoticed... the implications of which are devastating to Paul if one is able to hear everything that is being said. Paul makes this statement to Timothy.

"This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me." 2Timothy 1:15

Asia! All of them! Rejecting Paul! And when he says, "This you know", it sounds like this must have been relatively common knowledge at that time. Asia! The very place that Yahshua told John to write, where his seven churches were! And they were alive, and obviously had been established for some time. Paul did not say that Asia had rejected Yahshua. Obviously they hadn't rejected Yahshua if there were thriving churches there that Yahshua wanted to address through John. Instead Paul said that all Asia had rejected him personally! This is also corroborated in the book of Acts where men from Asia accuse Paul of teaching against the Law, and bringing an Ephesian friend into the temple.

And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him. crying out, "Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the Law, and this place: and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place." (For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.) Acts 21:27-29

Try to grasp the profound significance of all this. Here we have in the book of Revelation the words of Yahshua commending the Ephesian church for rejecting someone who claimed to be his apostle, while Paul is the only person other than the twelve original apostles to have claimed to be an apostle... and we know he has made this very claim to this same Ephesian church. At the same time, Paul laments himself of the fact that he has been rejected by them! How could it NOT be Paul and his associates that Yahshua had commended the Ephesian church for rejecting? Could it be much more obvious? Here are the facts, paraphrased, one more time.

Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Yahshua"

The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not."

Yahshua to the Ephesians: "Well done!"

This should at the very least raise serious question about Paul. When we add to this the remaining evidence against his doctrine, as well as the documented fact that he outright lied a number of times (as I will show in the next chapter), we have more than enough reason to do as the Ephesian church and convict Paul of the crime of false impersonation of an apostle!

Yahshua’s description of Paul in Revelation was that he was a false apostle, and a liar. Consider his following words.

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

[link to www.judaismvschristianity.com]

And you take Saul's word for it?

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. John 5:31

Total rubbish! Please provide chapter and verse for these claims of yours. You can't because they do not exist. Saul never even met Yeshua. Mathias was Judus's replacement.

Who was Paul?

In Christian tradition, he is known as “Paul of Tarsus,” as this is where Luke says he was born (Acts 9:11). At the time, Tarsus was located in the province of Cilicia, and now modern Turkey. However, Paul himself indicates that he was from the area of Damascus which was in Syria (see the letter to the Galatians). Luke has provided many of the standard elements in Paul’s life, but most of these items stand in stark opposition to what Paul himself reveals in his letters. For instance, Luke claims that Paul grew up in Jerusalem (studying at the feet of many who would be considered the first “rabbis” of normative Judaism, and eventually becoming a member of the “council” or the “Sanhedrin”). Paul himself says that he only visited Jerusalem twice, and even then his stay was a few days). What do we do about such contradictions?

On the one hand, Luke has a very obvious agenda in his presentation of Paul (as someone who willingly “obeys” any dictates from Jerusalem, consulting them constantly on how he should run his “mission”). On the other hand, Paul has an “agenda” as well, claiming that no one “human” told him what to do, but that it was the resurrected Christ who gave him the game plan (again see Galatians), and so he continually dismisses any influence from Jerusalem in his overall activities. In the final analysis, it is usually best to consult Paul’s letters over Luke’s version in terms of historicity when it comes to both Paul’s motivation and his actual work.

In the New Testament, we have fourteen letters traditionally assigned to Paul, but the scholarly consensus now believes that of the fourteen, seven were actually written by Paul:

1 Thessalonians,

Galatians,

Philemon,

Philippians

1 & 2 Corinthians,

Romans.

The others were most likely written by a disciple of Paul’s, using his name to carry authority. We understand these letters to be “circumstantial “meaning they were never intended as “systematic theology,” or as treatises on Christianity. In other words, the letters are responses to particular problems and circumstances as they arose in the various communities. They were not written as “universal” nor “eternal” dictates to serve as Christian ideology.

Paul was a Pharisee, and claims that when it came to “the Law” (in all of this, the “Law” at issue was “the Law of Moses”) he was more “zealous” and knew more about the law than anyone else). He was of the tribe of Benjamin (and thus Luke could use the “prior” name “Saul,” a quite famous Benjaminite name; name changes often go with a change of viewpoint in terms of a “new” person—Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Simon to Peter, etc.) He has also become the most famous “convert” in history. Being “struck on the road to Damascus” has become a metaphor for sudden enlightenment and conversion. However, “convert” is not the most accurate term for what happened to him. “Conversion” assumes changing from one religious belief to another. There are two problems with this kind of thinking: 1) at the time, there was essentially no “Christian” religion for him to convert to; and 2) Paul himself is ambiguous when it comes to understanding what he would have considered himself. When he says: “When among the gentiles, I acted as a gentile, and when among the Jews, I acted as Jew, I was all things to all men,” doesn’t help us resolve the question. In talking about what happened to Paul, it is probably better to say that “he was called” by God, in the tradition of the “calling” of prophets of ancient Israel.

What happened to Paul? In Galatians, he says he received a vision of the resurrected Jesus, who commissioned him to be “the Apostle to the gentiles.” This was crucial for Paul in terms of his authority. Everyone knew that he was never one of the “inner circle,” so a directive straight from Jesus is the way in which Paul argues that he has as much authority as the other Apostles. It is also crucially important in unraveling Paul’s views of the Law of Moses when it comes to his recruitment area, and something that should always be borne in mind when trying to analyze his views. It is also something that has been consistently misunderstood for 2000 years, and is only recently been opened for further debate (see “The New Perspective on Paul” in the Course Reader).

Paul’s “call to be the Apostle to the gentiles” was shocking because, as he freely admits, he had previously “persecuted the church of God.” What a loaded sentence! Most scholars cannot agree on what this means. The first problem is with the word, “persecuted.” In Greek, this could mean anything from heckling, to throwing eggs, to physical abuse. He never really explains it, nor does he give any explanation as to why he did it. Luke says that he used to vote “the death penalty” for Christians in the Sanhedrin, and then he obtained arrest warrants from the high priest to arrest Christians in Damascus (where he had his revelation). This is hyperbole on Luke’s part; the high priest at the time had no such authority, especially in another province.

What did Paul do when he “persecuted?” Probably what he himself received—the “thirty-nine lashes,” a form of synagogue discipline. At the same time, this raises more questions. Synagogue councils had authority only upon the agreement of those in the community. In other words, Paul could have walked away from this, but he did not—again, does this indicate that he still saw himself as a Jew? And again, what did he receive the lashes for? What were Christians saying/doing that would lead to disciplinary action? Many theories have been offered over the centuries: a) Christians taught against the Law of Moses. This is true when it came to gentiles, but then gentiles were never expected to follow the Law anyway. B) Christians were stirring people up with “messianic fervor.” These are the decades leading up to the Jewish Revolt. Did synagogue authorities see such preaching as a threat to the peace of their community vis-à-vis Rome? C) Christians and Jews were in hard-fought competition for the “souls” of those gentiles who were hanging out at the synagogues, and Jews saw the Christians as a threat to their recruitment areas. This one is patently false; Judaism was not a missionary religion.

My own theory. Paul, like John, contains “high Christology.” His experience of seeing Jesus in heaven means that Jesus was already “deified” in a sense for him. And he advocated “worship” of Jesus, which is probably the turning point between Jews and Christians. He repeats a hymn he had inherited in his letter to the Philippians:

5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

“That every knee should bow,” indicates worship. Hellenistic Judaism had incorporated a multitude of heavenly beings, with accompanying hierarchies (archangels, cherubim, seraphim, etc.), but no one ever advocated “worshipping” any of these beings—that was reserved for God alone. This is where Christians would begin the process of separating from the mother religion.

Paul and the Law

Paul’s job, as he saw it, was to bring “the good news” to the gentiles. Almost everything he writes about the Law pertains to this. The Law of Moses was never understood to be applied to the gentiles in Israelite tradition, so gentiles need not be subject to circumcision, dietary laws, or Sabbath regulations. These three are the focus, as they are physical rites that keep communities separated, and Paul sought to break-down barriers between communities. Paul is adamant about the topic. One of the reasons is that it is probably what he experienced—he probably observed some manifestation of the “spirit” take place, when gentiles were baptized (such as “speaking in tongues,” the room shaking, prophecy, etc.), and so he was convinced. If God choose to validate them in this way, how can they not be included?

But Paul has a problem. He was a Pharisee. The Law held great meaning for him. How could God have created the Law, but then not apply it universally? This is where it gets a little sticky—he can never say that the Law isn’t good, and so he defends it, but at the same time, it does not apply to gentiles. And in doing so, he sometimes paints himself into a corner and provides centuries of scholarly books and commentaries.

The letter to the Galatians deals with this problem of the Law. Paul’s plan was to establish communities throughout the Eastern Empire, and then stay in touch through letters or revisit them to see how they were doing. Galatia is a province in central Turkey. Apparently, after Paul left, “others” came along and taught “a different gospel.” Paul is outraged by this. As he says, “even if delivered by angels,” there IS no other gospel than his.” This “different gospel” advocated circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath duties, the very thing that Paul had fought against. So, he begins to lay out again, his teaching on this matter for those communities.

He goes to scripture, and he has to seek something before the Mosaic legislation. He finds it in the call of Abraham. With both the name (father of nations) and the promise, Paul claims that gentiles were included in this original covenant (“nations,” in Greek, “ethnos,” is what is translated as “gentiles”). But then, why did God give the Law of Moses, which limits inclusion? Paul says that the Law served as a “pedagogus.” A “pedagogus” was a tutor, most often a slave, who accompanied young boys to school, and also offered classes in the home. In other words, the Law served as a “guide” to define “sin,” for if we did not know what “sin” was, how could we choose? But now Christ is the “telos of the Law.” Some Bibles translate this as “the end of the Law,” but more accurately, it means “the goal of the Law.”

Does this mean that Jewish followers of Christ no longer had to follow the Law? Of course not—if you are born under the Law, you are required to follow it. Clear as mud, isn’t he?

The idea of a “law-free mission to the gentiles” is really a misnomer and leads to many wrong conclusions on Paul’s thought. His gentiles were to be free of circumcision, dietary laws and Sabbath regulations, but they are not totally free from “the Law.” Don’t imagine for one moment that Paul let his “gentiles” continue with idolatry, or any other “pagan” customs, and he incorporated Jewish ethical and charitable concepts into his communities. These are Jewish customs. In his book, “Paul,” E. P. Sanders applies modern social scientific methods to the study of Paul’s views of the Law, and concludes that he follows a “pattern of religion,” or how one “gets in,” and how one “stays in.” For Paul, one gets in not by following the Law, but once in, one follows the Law (or Paul’s version of it).

A problematic phrase of Paul’s became the basis of centuries of commentary, culminating in Martin Luther’s separation from the church of Rome. Paul claims that gentiles are saved by “faith alone,” and not by “works of the Law.” What he meant by “works of the Law” were those ritual barriers between communities: circumcision, dietary laws, etc. But for centuries, it was understood as the great divide between Judaism and Christianity.

A careful reading of his letters indicates that Paul is not setting himself up against Judaism per se, but against those other Christians who believe that gentiles have to become Jews first before entering the community. Who were these other Christians? We think they were probably gentile-Christians, not Jews. So why would gentile-Christians advocate circumcision?

There is a chart in your Course Reader, outlining the process of emerging Christianity over the issue of gentiles. Paul says that after he had been in the “mission field” several years, he went up to Jerusalem for a meeting over the gentiles (which may or may not be the meeting Luke relates in Acts 15). The timing is odd (Scholars place the meeting circa 49/50). And, according to Luke, gentiles had been approved after Peter’s meeting with Cornelius, so why, years later, is a meeting required to “settle” the issue? One theory is that timing was passing and Jesus had not returned. Perhaps some gentile-Christians thought they had “erred” by not becoming Jews first and thought that by doing so, it would help speed up the time for the “end.”

Paul is not worried about the time in the same way. With his own experience, he has discovered that the list from “Jewish Restoration Theology” needed a little “tweaking.” Instead of waiting for the Jews to be “gathered in,” he claims that gentiles turning to the God of Israel supersedes that item. And, as “Apostle to the Gentiles,” his role among this group is crucial to the unwinding of the final days. In other words, the “kingdom” waits upon Paul’s reaching as many gentiles as he can. Once that is accomplished, then the Jews will “see the light” and join (Romans 9-11).