What's with all the hate for Paul?

The more stronger the message, the more the world hates that message, so there must be a "key" in his message,, a very valuable key, a reply to: deadeyedick
maybe a
key.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
If you could be so kind as to enlighten me on why you maybe not hate but choose to disagree with his part of the story. Please keep it as simple as possible for i have a fragile little mind.

That sneaky Paul. He created the idea of Christianity in 300 AD Greece using Jesus as model for it (he also was a misogynist hating ON 50% of the human population). Did you know Jesus himself WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN and could not be the poster child for this particular dogma in the first place; if he were alive at this time to see this church created (by Paul) based upon his teachings would probably have dropped a 3 ton ACME cartoon safe from a 10 story building on him (insert Warner Bros 1960AD into 270AD) in Greece time. Speaking in metaphor as applicable; one cartoon destroys the other.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Cuervo care to put some thought into it. i do value your answers

Yeah... I totally overlooked which forum this was in. I wasn't being willfully ignorant; I actually thought it was some current events topic I wasn't aware of. Now I get it. Paul from the bible in the religion forum. That's what I get for just looking at "recent topics" instead of subjects. Anyway...

I think the dislike of Paul stems from the disconnect many people feel between him and Jesus. When looking at it from the outside, it seems like Paul came along to make the movement a more inclusive one with lower barrier-to-entry which would also make him a much more powerful person in terms of being a leader among a larger, more diverse, audience.

On one hand, I think he did change the message intended by Jesus but, on the other, I see much of myself in Paul, trying to consolidate the commoners against the oppressive theocracy of the Jews and oligarchy of the Romans. I think it's very similar to what the more open-minded modern churches are trying to do today.

So yeah, he did some damage to the message but also ensured the survival of Christianity. If not for him, Christianity would have stayed rather mono-ethnic and would not have grown like it did (for better or worse).

I know I've said before that Christianity would be much better if not for Paul but I've changed my tune since then. It all depends on your definition of "better".

I don't hate Paul, I do dislike him though. He changed Jesus' message to fit the needs of those he worked for, the Romans.

Matthew 16
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

He says to stay away from the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Jewish leaders of the time.

Luke 21
8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

He says many will come in his name and deceive many people.

Paul was a Pharisee who persecuted Christians before his "conversion" on the road to Damascus, he also claimed to speak for Jesus.

Pauline doctrine is the foundation of the Christian religion which has many many followers and aligns Jesus with OT scripture, the book that the Pharisee's considered to be from god.

Seems to me that Paul fits Jesus' warning perfectly, but many have been deceived by him still. He never knew Jesus and only quotes him ONE time throughout his entire 13 epistles.

Seems fishy as hell to me. That's why I dislike Paul and his teachings. He contradicts Jesus on several occasions and inserts his own doctrine into the message Jesus gave.

Why was Paul even needed? Were Jesus' words not enough to stand on their own? Why the middle-man?

a reply to: deadeyedick

You assume most people are idiots, but they're not.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: deadeyedick
If you could be so kind as to enlighten me on why you maybe not hate but choose to disagree with his part of the story. Please keep it as simple as possible for i have a fragile little mind.

That sneaky Paul. He created the idea of Christianity in 300 AD Greece using Jesus as model for it (he also was a misogynist hating ON 50% of the human population). Did you know Jesus himself WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN and could not be the poster child for this particular dogma in the first place; if he were alive at this time to see this church created (by Paul) based upon his teachings would probably have dropped a 3 ton ACME cartoon safe from a 10 story building on him (insert Warner Bros 1960AD into 270AD) in Greece time. Speaking in metaphor as applicable; one cartoon destroys the other.

Maybe as Paul said, and i quote "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said,
It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you:
but seeing ye put it from you,
and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life
, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

or in more modern vernacular, piss off then,,

ya gotta luv Paul.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
If you could be so kind as to enlighten me on why you maybe not hate but choose to disagree with his part of the story. Please keep it as simple as possible for i have a fragile little mind.

The Bible critics skeptics, atheists and feminists instinctively loathe paul because their spiritual father is Satan. however; thier rationales include:


Paul actually was called by Jesus in a blatantly divine fashion.
Paul, being something of a rennaisance man was completely conversant on the Torah, was a scribe and able to leave a written record. He wrote 2/3s or more of the New Testament. without Paul the bible would not exist as we know it. If you can discredit Paul you can basically discredit 2/3s of the canon New Testament and hence largely destroy the rational for Christianity. If you can disprove 2/3s of canon scripture as being fraudulent or flawed you can easily claim the same for the remaining books including casting doubt on the gospels without which Christianity is void.

They attack him on false grounds all the time. for example he is charged with being a misogynist. "He hated women" and so on. but he actually acknowledges several women as being superior to men in the ministry of the early church and called some of them prophets. Pheobe the apostle; for example. another woman he proclaimed superior to her husband in running church business and organization. his oft cited quote about women being silent in church is taken out of context of the stage the church was in as far as forming and organizing and the fact that the new converts were in basic training in the scriptures. it wasn't just a cultural thing it was an expedient thing. yet women were allowed to be preachers and prophets and apostles. (did you know the apostles had thier own apostles under them?) it's in the bible and we know at least some of them were women. take that feminists. take that actual misogynist male preachers and denominations that forbid women to preach.

I have never been fond of Paul.
His writings always came across a bit arrogant to me.

Paul's writings are attacked simply because he used to be one of "them".

I did a bunch of digging and I am now convinced that this whole issue revolves around the fact that Paul was an elite "whistleblower".

He used to be a part of the "elite" and he turned against them and exposed them for what they are.

Throughout history anyone who has done this has been attacked and killed just like all others that have exposed the TPTB, the money changers, and the Illuminati.

Illuminati whistle blowers such as Jesus, JFK, Lincoln etc have always been silenced since the beginning of history. EVERY person who has the ability to change the world...is murdered....coincidence?

I think NOT...

The article quoted below confirmed this for me:

"Please be aware of the anti-Paul movement, it was set up by the foe (today's Edomites) to fordo (destroy) the Israel Insight.

This movement twists what Paul says in order to make him look like a huckster but who are the hucksters in this world? The Jewish Encyclopedia and other jewish writings makes makes it clear that one of the greatest of the foes for Judaism is Paul. The jews spew hatred upon Paul.

“Needless to say, observant Jews objected to Paul, ... whom they saw as the worst kind of heretic. Indeed, because of Jewish complaints against him, Paul was arrested by the Roman authorities, held for a time under house arrest, and finally executed in or around 67 CE (the year of the start of the Great Revolt against Rome in Israel.)” ~ Rabbi Ken Spiro

• To be Anti-Paul is to tear the living heart out of the New Testament.

• To be Anti Paul opens up a Pandora’s Box among people as to what is inspired in the Bible and what is not. The Canon is a sacred Ark, man’s unsanctified hands are not to touch it. Will this foolishness never end? QUESTIONING GOD’S WORD DENOTES UNBELIEF!

• To be Anti-Paul lays that person open to the full force of Rationalism, Modernism, and “doubt” far worse than any NEO-ORTHODOXY ever dreamed of!

• To be Anti-Paul is an outright denial of the Providence of God in settling and arranging the Canon of Scripture as we know it. Of this Scripture the God of Israel is most jealous! The whole question is: MAN’S MOUTH versus GOD’S WORD!

The Anti-Paul Movement is Jewish

As a married man,,"forbid women to preach." ive tried it,, but results can vary,,



very good.


a reply to: stormbringer1701

i always thought i was because Paul and Peter fought all the time,
a reply to: Murgatroid

[I]Bobathome[/I]
Maybe as Paul said, and i quote "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said,
It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you:
but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life
, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."or in more modern vernacular, piss off then,, ya gotta luv Paul.

Not really so much in love. I'm just not a fan of the catholic costume drama (what paul spawned). I don't need Paul to tell me how to talk to God, through a superhero caped conical hatted priest personage whispering to me through a screen in a door (looking for blackmail dirt on the village "confess your sins AND EVERYONE ELSES or else " (there is something sick and demonic to this). It is necessary for all to know that you can talk to God without an immediary that wants to pick pocket your spare change, take your land (natural resources) rob your pagan identity . Paul is not needed nor his Christian church; even Jesus would have rejected this warped idea of just another idea of new type of NOW A ROMAN Christian OVERLORD working as usual to keep his political skin intact (the gear switching is amazing ) Saducce, Pharacee out of favor.

sounds personal , so id rather not listen to it.
sorry.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: BobAthome
sounds personal , so id rather not listen to it.
sorry.

a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

Its your thread, your topic put out there to the masses so can insert the earplugs as needed. However; as I have no belief systems in place; its not at all personal, just logical observation of how religious dogma works to influence the human positive or negative. You were the one to bring up " why the Hatred of Paul" in the FIRST PLACE. If you didn't know Pauls relevant invention/contribution to Catholisms creation what can I say?

a reply to: Murgatroid

If Paul turned against the elite, why did he write this:

Romans 13
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted , and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

He calls those who are in authority (the elites) servants of God for our own good. Seems to me he was covering for the elites, not exposing them.

Funny that he says that the authorities hold no terror for those who do right, reason being that he was killed by the authorities. Was he doing anything wrong by spreading the so-called "truth"? If not, why did the authorities hold terror against him by killing him and persecuting Christians?

a reply to: deadeyedick

Jesus was a radical (from a jewish rabbinical point of view). Peaceful, but radically opposed to convention, tradition and sanctimoniousness. To Jesus, our motives and attitudes were, from God's perspective, just as real and valid as our actions.

Paul, on the other hand was a conservative and understood what Jesus was about from a traditional Jewish perspective. That being said, he realized that what Jesus was saying was not just for Jews, but for all peoples. I believe that he saw his mission was to explain Jesus in the framework of explaining Jewish beliefs and practices to a gentile world. Jewish faith was inextricably bound to the Laws of God (there are 614 of them) and Paul used the teachings of Jesus to explore the intention/motivation behind the Laws. As such, many Christians see a dichotomy between what Christ taught and what Paul taught. This is probably because they see Christ's radicalism as a rejection of the Law and Pauls interpretation as legalist.

The truth is that Christ didn't come to abolish the Law (He said so frequently) but to complete the Law, guiding us to understand why the Law was as it was. Paul and Jesus were preaching from the same book, but their approaches were different.

Also, many who dislike what Paul taught, and who say that Jesus did not claim deity, do not understand Jewish sarcasm. When Jesus was asked if He claimed to be the Messiah, He replied that "you have said that I am". If you look at the reaction of the questioners, it becomes clear that Jesus was actually replying, in terms they were fully understanding of, that "you have testified that I am God".

Also the disciple Thomas said of Jesus "My Lord and my God". Jesus did not correct him but instead began to explain about the nature of faith.

There are other passages supporting Paul's assertion that Jesus was God and the son of God.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Dear deadeyedick,

I think you've received your answer by looking at the posts. If not, we can discuss it.

I'm reminded of a primitive who sees lightning for the first time. He's scared, but he sees that it started a small fire and he learns to use that fire. Over time, lighting is seen as a good thing, bringing the blessing of the gods to mankind. One day it strikes a member of the tribe, killing him. The tribesmen shout "That was bad lightning. We want the good lightning back."

In a phrase I've come to hate: "It is what it is."

Go ahead, throw out everything that doesn't appeal to the current wishes of society, anything that doesn't leave a "feel good" feeling. You'll be left with tepid water, drunk a dozen times before and worthless for any significant purpose.

Oh, Paul created Christianity in 300? Not even close. We have letters to the Roman Emperor asking how CHRISTIANS should be treated if they refuse to convert to emperor worship.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

it is what it is.

that phrase rings very loudly to me and one day we will all know why but i know to be on my toes when i hear it spoken and that truth follows...




a very big thanks to all who have shared their view for i am still trying to understand it all and this helps. If anyone will indulge me i have one more question that may offend but an honest answer will go far.

For those that disagree with Paul do you support gay marriage?

a reply to: deadeyedick

I support gay marriage, it should be equal opportunity for all. I see the outlawing of gay marriage as equivalent to black people having to sit at the back of the bus in the 50's and 60's. It's discrimination in my opinion.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Dear eNL1GHT3N3D1,

Nice to talk to you again. My understanding was that the question of gay marriage here was based on Paul's writing. Am I correct in thinking that you're looking at it from a legal standpoint?

There are things which are unbiblical yet legal, and vice versa.

With respect,
Charles1952