Paul hi-jacked the new 'faith'?

Paul claims apostleship in his writings many times. Now look at this line from his letter to the church of Ephesus:
'Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God (Ephesians1:1)'

Note this is to the church of Ephesus.

Paul writes in Timothy that everyone in Asia has turned away from him:
'This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me. (Timothy1:15)'

Ephesus is in Asia. So the people Pail claimed to be an apostle to have turned away from him.

In Revelation God has a message for the church of Ephesus.

'Revelation 2:1-2 1"To the angel of the church in Ephesus write…… 2I 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.'

Is this refering to Paul? We know Paul was rejected by them.

There are many other bits of Biblical evidence that discredit Paul that can be easily found online, this is just one.

Paul clearly doesnt meet the criteria (recorded in Acts) to be an apostle. And we know that Matthias was choosen as replacement for Judas. Though apostle may be a term that can refer to more than just the 12.

What do you think is he a false apostle or not?

And also whats the possibilty that Paul has been the target of a smear campaign by someone? He has been subtley targeted for discrediting.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by blueIII]

Paul was the special apostle to the Gentiles. At first this wasn't revealed to him. There is a movement within the Christian church based on book "Things that Differ" by Cornelious Stam. In that book it emphasizes certain books such as those by Paul are specifically for current church whereas other writings are say more directed toward the Jews. Anyway to some it answers many questions..

I know that this might throw a few on here into a real fit, but I have always thought Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus) "took over" Christianity. There are several references that he had areas of conflict with the Original 12, especially Peter and James the Greater. One point in particular is the disagreement over which foods are ok for Christians to eat. Should they follow the Kosher laws or not?

Remember that Saul was a "bounty hunter" if you will of the early Christians. It was his job to find, try, and punish (read kill) the heretics of this new cult of Judaism called Christianity. Anyone who knows how to bring a dangerous sect to heel is most easily done from within. That is how the KKK was brought to a much less influential status by the FBI in the 1960's and 70's. I think Saul changed early Christianity from a Messianic movement for the overthrow of Rome into a Kingdom of the Spirit and life-after-this-life religion.

Cheers!

reply to post by blueIII


Paul was a well known phoney in Apostolic biblical times. An enemy of 'Jesus' and his followers - also a enemy of the Jews - even though he WAS a jew himself. He worked for the Roman Occupying Forces in Israel as a tax collector and informer. His actual jewish name was 'Saul' - not 'Paul'.
Many who have studies the Dead Sea Scrolls hypothesise that he is the 'Imposter' and the 'Liar' spoken of in these texts...which may explain why he went out of his way to destroy the original 'christian church' of James (Jesus's brother) in Jerusalem once he began to gain some influence and power.

Besides - it's all nonsense anyhow

Jimbo

reply to post by keltdruid65



Absolutely correct. And as such - that basically puts the following 2000 years of Christianity (which he initiated and shaped) into serious disrepute....Ooops, there goes that apple cart

Jimbo

reply to post by BlackProjects



Hmmm..sorry - but that's nonsense. Quite simply what you are stating is latter day catholic propaganda....there is NO factual basis for any of that.

Jimbo

reply to post by keltdruid65


As you say Saul experienced an encounter with Christ on road to Damascus. That transformed his life and instead of persecuting Christians he became God's special messenger to Gentiles. Even Peter was skeptical at first. A large part of the bible is written by Paul. Paul was stoned/beaten/starved and imprisoned for what he taught. He always said he was the least amoung believers(thinking of his past and persecuting Christians). Christianity spread through the world and endured much persecution for thousands of years. In spite of efforts to stop it. Therefore it is not a far stretch to believe the holy spirit via Paul was indeed at work. Further, to say that he hijacked Christianity or was not preaching the truth therefore equates to blasphamy of the holy spirit(a dangerous place to tread)

reply to post by BlackProjects


Ermmm...he never mentioned 'Pual's/Saul's conversion at all? You did. Paul's 'conversion' was more likely a realisation that there was money & power to be earned with a new-fangled version of the extremist jewish sect philosophies of Jesus and his followers.

Paul didn't persecute 'Christians' at all - he invented 'Christians' He persecuted Jews. As for the 'Holy Spirit'? More likely he was filled with thoughts of the 'Holy Bank Account' Successful cults in the late classical period could be very profitable indeed. Paul/Saul knew this...

Jimbo

reply to post by jimbo999


Yeah I'd say the Damascus road is a significant factor in any discussion of Saul/Paul. Phil 3:6 , or Acts 8:3 says he(as Saul) persecuted 'Christian church'.

Oh yeah there was a lot of money to be made in "the new fangled version of the extremist jewish sect". How'd that money work out in his life? While being stoned he paid for smoother rocks to be thrown at him maybe..ho ho.

I guess those miracles in Acts were probabley a result of his money...

Originally posted by blueIII
What do you think is he a false apostle or not?

Was Peter a false apostle?

Originally posted by WiseSheep
Was Peter a false apostle?

Well to get to the point really... Peter had some nice things to say about Paul and his epistles. That is if Paul was indeed a false apostle. So maybe we could just go ahead and discredit Peter too.

See here:

2 Peter 3:15-17
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Umm....I never mentioned his "transformation".

As far as using the New Testament quotes as proof of Paul's authenticity--no conclusive proof has ever been presented that the books of the Bible attributed to Paul, Peter, et al were indeed written by them. By the time of the compilation of the New Testament, the conversion from the Messianic message to a Spiritual Kingdom to come was already ingrained into the system. Seems like a lot of "spin-doctoring' to me...

Paul completely taught the opposite of the teachings of Jesus and his sampradaya. Paul was not a real disciple of Jesus. One account come to mind that Jesus said that faith alone will not get you to heaven yet Paul says that all you need is faith in Christ.

Originally posted by blueIII
Paul writes in Timothy that everyone in Asia has turned away from him:
'This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me. (Timothy1:15)'

Ephesus is in Asia. So the people Pail claimed to be an apostle to have turned away from him.

Be very careful to isolate verses. Look at the context. PAUL WAS IN PRISON WHEN HE WROTE THIS EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. It's not that his friends and congregation rejected him as being a false preacher- they were terrified they would also be thrown in prison and tortured just like Paul was currently undergoing. They deserted him out of fear when Nero sentenced Paul to death. They weren't about to visit him in prison.

Originally posted by plague
Paul completely taught the opposite of the teachings of Jesus and his sampradaya. Paul was not a real disciple of Jesus. One account come to mind that Jesus said that faith alone will not get you to heaven yet Paul says that all you need is faith in Christ.

No, that is exactly what Jesus said. The apostles themselves (who were used to the requirement of rituals under Jewish law) specifically asked Jesus what types of rituals they needed to perform to be saved. Jesus explicitly replied "believe in the one who was sent" meaning, believe Jesus did what He came to do- die for our sins so we would be forgiven past present and future. Hope that helps.

I had my suspicions of Paul's ministry as well before I was a true believer but the doubt quickly dissipated once I took the time to read what the Bible stated via internal evidence.

Also, don't forget John 3:16. "Whoever believes in Jesus will have everlasting life."

As Voltaire once said I believe, "mankind is incurably religious." Even though Jesus said our salvation wasn't based on works or rituals, the Catholic church and other denominations of Christianity claim these things are required. Not so!

[edit on 12/31/2007 by AshleyD]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Absolutely untrue. The apostles were most definitely suspicious of Paul at first following his conversion but they later fully accepted him into the fold. Their suspicion is even mentioned in the New Testament.

Personally, I think Paul's conversion is an incredible testimony. It was his job to find Christians and arrest them. He was an orthodox Jew who believed Christianity was heresy. His turnaround would be similar to Adolph Eichmann converting to Judaism during the holocaust, preaching Judaism with full power, and ultimately being sent to a death camp himself because he was so confident about the divine evidence he received.

There is simply too much evidence Paul was an actual person who underwent the things claimed in the New Testament through early eye witnesses and authors. So it's not "all nonsense" as you claim.

As to the Dead Sea Scroll reference: Unless the impostor was specifically named as being Paul (which it wasn't), your argument is nothing but speculation based on presupposition.

[edit on 12/31/2007 by AshleyD]

Ashley D,

Matthews 5:17-20
"Dont misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear , not even the smallest detail of Gods law will disapear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same , you will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But anyone who obeys Gods laws and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven, but I warn you ...unless your rightteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law or the pharisees you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Now does this sound like Jesus is saying just believe in me and you will go to heaven.

reply to post by plague


I was waiting for someone to bring up this argument up (and rightfully so because it's a very good question).

Check out this article. It explains this predicament pretty well:

The Old Testament Law and New Testament Christians

If you have any other concerns just let me know but his explanation is pretty thorough and solid.

[edit on 12/31/2007 by AshleyD]

Ashley,
I beg of you to be careful of your sources. That article showed me nothing to refute the passage from Mathews. He did however use alot of
word juggling and multiple passages but never really truly touched on the core of the subject. I truly think to really understand Jesus and what he said you must search out the hidden text that actually have Jesus's real teachings not just second hand letters. Then you will see where Paul truly hijacked "Christianity".

reply to post by plague


Here is the easiest way to explain this without going into theological symbolism: The OT law was how the ancient Jews required salvation and sin atonement while waiting for their promised Messiah who would come and be their link to salvation. Jesus did this and now He was the link to salvation. Not the law.

But wouldn't this mean He abolished the law? No! If you carefully examine the meaning of the feasts and ceremonial laws, you will see this principle and the foreshadowed concept.

Jesus "fulfilling the law but not abolishing it" specifically means the principle was not now considered invalid but that it was eternally completed. If Jesus had abolished it, He never would have had to be crucified for our sins! The principle of sin requiring atonement was still in full force- even until today. This means one has to accept Jesus as their personal savior for their sins to be covered. His death alone is not a blanket cover for all of mankind but for those who accept his gift.

Remember what Jesus said at the cross: "It is finished." Some readers of the Greek translate this as "paid in full." The debt [law] was not canceled. It was paid off completely for those who accept the pardon. He never, ever abolished the spiritual principles but completed them.