Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Paul The First Heretic

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
As with many of my threads i don't expect this to be popular. And of course as usual i present this only for informational purposes. Read it and take it as you will...

This is in no way my work... And is only intended as "interesting reading" this was not presented as an attack or meant to offend any religious beliefs...


Paul taught that the whole function of Jesus centred on his death which released the faithful from the burden of their sins, their misery and the power of Satan. In fact not a single word Paul wrote in the Epistles gives the actual teaching of Jesus, nor does he mention even one of his parables; instead he spreads his own philosophy and his own ideas.

Paul tends to characterise all people as children of anger, ie. as subject to the wrath of God (see Eph. 2,3). All are (without exception) quite lost (eg. Romans 5,18; Cor. 15,18), without hope and without God (Eph. 2,12), for Satan has power over everyone (without exception) (eg. Rom. 3,9; Gal. 3,22; Col 2,14). A sentence of damnation hangs like a sword of Damocles over all people (eg. Rom. 5,16).

Thus Paul as a human teacher made out of the joyous tidings his threatening tidings and implied that only he could show the path to salvation. Of course with such an attitude one can hardly arrive at a natural view of death, for it makes death a solution to sin.

In no other religion do we find such cultivation of the fear of death as in the Pauline Christianity. With Paul Christianity became a religion in which Christians, beset by fears, would bow docilely under the yoke of threats. The religion was already veering away from the concept of the kind and loving, all-forgiving God of Jesus, and reverting to the crudities of the wrathful Old Testament God, as borne out by Paul's words.

The point comes home best when one considers Paul's explicit statement that the human individual can do nothing himself to secure salvation, "Š(cf. Rom. 3,24; 3,28; 9,11; 9,16; 1.Cor. 1,29; Gal. 2,16). For according to Paul salvation depends solely on the Grace of GodŠ" (Eph. 2, 8-9).

Thus the Pauline doctrine makes salvation a one-sided matter for God; people on earth have their hands bound (cf. Rom. 3,24; 4,16; Eph. 2,5; 2,8-9; 2. Tim. 1,9; Tit. 3,5-7). What Paul says here is of course quite attractive, because it is comfortable. By joining the fold, salvation ensues "automatically". No effort on one's own part is then necessary to arrive at the goal of life, for every Christian is saved once and for all by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross at Golgotha.

It means that one has only to sign up with this "institution", pay the "membership fee", and (lo and behold!) everything is settled for securing a seat in paradise for all eternity. Naturally such a teaching attracted many supporters and spread rapidly. After all it is easier to believe in something that can be had safely and comfortably.

Simply by the simple act of conversion a person is then redeemed, saved, made a child of God, and becomes a completely new person. According to this teaching, every attempt on one's own part to work towards salvation plays down Jesus' role, is even a deadly sin. And conversely, every person, however exemplary and good his or her life may have been, is declared by his teaching to be lost if he or she does not gratefully acknowledge the sacrifice of the cross as constituting their entire personal salvation.

Most Christians think the greatness and uniqueness of Christianity stands and falls with the truth of his teaching. On closer inspection, however, it is found to be a fabrication, far removed from the real ideas of Jesus. There is no hint of the so called Christian doctrine of salvation in the gospels, either in the sermon on the mount - the quintessence of Jesus' message - or in the Our Father, or the traditional parables of Jesus!

Jesus did not supply theories to be ground in the mills of academia, about his path and message -- he just lived his teaching!


Paul the first Heretic

edit on 3-4-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
And sadly, many churches are still using Paul's words today to lure in the "lost", tie them up, and beat them into submission.

Been there, done that,
burned the t-shirt.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I was thinking of Paul from the movie.....Paul! He's a heretic, in my mind now!



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Could you be so kind as to provide a link to the source quoted. Thanks, theo-



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I appreciate the fact that you did not present this in a confrontational manner.
I disagree with this individual's opinion. Paul's ministry was to the gentiles and he had to let the gentiles know that salvation was available to them without all the seven hundred Jewish laws plus, but was simply a matter of receiving Christ and His work on the cross. Some disciples were teaching that to be a Christian, one had to obey the Jewish Old Testament law as well as the laws of grace. Even the Apostle Peter was teaching this in error.
The writer of this article takes a very narrow view of the Pauline epistles and draws much of his scripture reference out of context. I simply don't feel like going into scripture references right now but maybe later as this thread progresses. Paul expounds on grace throughout his writings and Peter taught not to use "grace as a cloak of maliciousness (I Peter 2:15).
It was not Paul's ministry to teach the exact teachings of Christ but to expound on the death of Christ and it's purpose.
Seeashrink



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theophorus
reply to post by Akragon
 


Could you be so kind as to provide a link to the source quoted. Thanks, theo-


i appoligise my friend, i thought i provided it, but it seems i forgot... I will update the original post with the link...

thank you for letting me know




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by seeashrink
 


Are you admiting that "everything" in the bible isn't true?




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I noticed that you ignored my reply to your previous effort, but I would once again ask you to cite specific examples where Paul's teaching contradicts Jesus. This time, I would prefer YOUR examples, ones that you have noted in reading Paul's letters, not the poorly thought out previous ones.

That aside, three questions:

1) Is your mother a semite? Is she a practicing Jew?
2) If you are a male, have you been circumcised by a mohel?
3) Do you adhere to all the Law in the Torah and Talmud, including dietary, cultural and ritualistic laws? Do you perform the required sacrifices (doves, goats, etc) annually in the Temple?

If your answer to any of those is "no", then Jesus did not come for you, by his own words (Matthew 15:24) and your rejection of Paul and the Universal Christianity that he was charged with teaching means that you are condemned, because your "no" answer means that you are not one of the chosen people.

Since you wish to be saved by the Law, if you are Jewish, knock yourself out. If you are not Jewish, you're out of luck.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
I noticed that you ignored my reply to your previous effort, but I would once again ask you to cite specific examples where Paul's teaching contradicts Jesus. This time, I would prefer YOUR examples, ones that you have noted in reading Paul's letters, not the poorly thought out previous ones.

That aside, three questions:

1) Is your mother a semite? Is she a practicing Jew?
2) If you are a male, have you been circumcised by a mohel?
3) Do you adhere to all the Law in the Torah and Talmud, including dietary, cultural and ritualistic laws? Do you perform the required sacrifices (doves, goats, etc) annually in the Temple?

If your answer to any of those is "no", then Jesus did not come for you, by his own words (Matthew 15:24) and your rejection of Paul and the Universal Christianity that he was charged with teaching means that you are condemned, because your "no" answer means that you are not one of the chosen people.

Since you wish to be saved by the Law, if you are Jewish, knock yourself out. If you are not Jewish, you're out of luck.


Well first off that link had nothing to do with me, so i don't know what "previous effort' you're refering to...

Second, i said specifically this wasn't my work, nor was it intended to offend anyone... if it did so be it, if you find it wrong...so be it. This was one persons perspective... Im sorry you didn't figure that one out but i couldn't have been more clear. I also said nothing against paul, i mearly presented information... so there was no "poorly thought out" examples to give you...

Im not jewish or any other title or label you like to use, i am myself.


If your answer to any of those is "no", then Jesus did not come for you, by his own words (Matthew 15:24) and your rejection of Paul and the Universal Christianity that he was charged with teaching means that you are condemned, because your "no" answer means that you are not one of the chosen people.


24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel...

what does this have to do with me? Please explain... does this not say hes sent to the world not just the house of israel? You believe one verse can condem me? *shrug* ... Judge away my friend


Thats not how you quote scripture...one verse from a chapter means nothing if you don't read the rest...

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
...
She came crying to him, but he said nothing, and his diciples wanted him to send her away but he wouldn't because as i've said he was sent to the world. Then she begs him to help, and he does... and why?

john 14
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
(yay we can all cherry pick, at least mine made sence
)

Again, he was sent to the world not just Israel... or am i wrong?

Also i don't by into what you believe is "saved" so i could care less what you say about it.

And one more thing, in the future when you reply to me or ask a question... try being a little nicer instead of using the old "my version is the only correct one" bullsh!t... Your words don't condem me, nor does what you preach.

If you're going to be rude i'll just ignore you, simple as that


edit on 3-4-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not sure where you got that idea out of my post.
Marcus



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I was just asking a question honestly...


The writer of this article takes a very narrow view of the Pauline epistles and draws much of his scripture reference out of context. I simply don't feel like going into scripture references right now but maybe later as this thread progresses.



I would like to see examples of what you're saying here

edit on 3-4-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Well before Paul was an Apostle he was a very mean Jewish clergyman named Saul, since Christ did to him what he had never done to no other, he basically personally converted him through supernatural phenomena.

How some can say Paul is a heretic to Christianity is beyond me, if he was a heretic to anything, it was to Judaism.

Please read the bible people, before you post in this section, show that you have some clue about what the bible really teaches, otherwise you are wasting time and muddying the waters with misunderstanding, based on personal opinion and philosophy.
edit on 3-4-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Try to realize this post is the "personal opinion" of the writer...

Lets try to keep it civil alright




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
Well first off that link had nothing to do with me, so i don't know what "previous effort' you're refering to...


Yes, apologies. I thought that you were the poster that I'd been replying to, but it was someone else who didn't really understand what Paul brought to the table and who made very similar statements.


Im not jewish or any other title or label you like to use, i am myself.


What people don't seem to understand about Paul is that he was specifically charged with bringing the message of Christ to the Gentiles. He was, without question, not a "heretic", unless one believes that only a Jew can be a Christian (which was a common belief in the early church,) and if Paul's teaching is wrong, there is no salvation in Christ for anyone other than those I listed.


And one more thing, in the future when you reply to me or ask a question... try being a little nicer instead of using the old "my version is the only correct one" bullsh!t... Your words don't condem me, nor does what you preach.


There is little point to just randomly quoting someone else's work without providing your own input or perspective, since no one can question or debate an author who is not here. If you don't believe that Paul is a heretic, then why take offence, and if you do, then the questions I raise are valid ones that you should consider, rather than swearing and complaining that people don't agree with you.

I am an orthodox Christian apologist, and I believe that posts such are yours are intentionally attempting to mislead people about what Christianity is. If you intend to continue to misrepresent Christianity, your misstatements will continue to be pointed out -- and you are welcome to respond, of course.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Well written reply. I agree, it's difficult to discuss the Bible without studying it. Unfortunately, so many people only read about the Bible's "perceived" discrepancies. However, if it is properly studied, keeping things in context, knowing to whom and why the book/letter was written will go a long way toward understanding. Also researching the Greek, Hebrew, and some Arabic will help a great deal.
Seeashrink



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Akragon
Well first off that link had nothing to do with me, so i don't know what "previous effort' you're refering to...


Yes, apologies. I thought that you were the poster that I'd been replying to, but it was someone else who didn't really understand what Paul brought to the table and who made very similar statements.


Im not jewish or any other title or label you like to use, i am myself.


What people don't seem to understand about Paul is that he was specifically charged with bringing the message of Christ to the Gentiles. He was, without question, not a "heretic", unless one believes that only a Jew can be a Christian (which was a common belief in the early church,) and if Paul's teaching is wrong, there is no salvation in Christ for anyone other than those I listed.


And one more thing, in the future when you reply to me or ask a question... try being a little nicer instead of using the old "my version is the only correct one" bullsh!t... Your words don't condem me, nor does what you preach.


There is little point to just randomly quoting someone else's work without providing your own input or perspective, since no one can question or debate an author who is not here. If you don't believe that Paul is a heretic, then why take offence, and if you do, then the questions I raise are valid ones that you should consider, rather than swearing and complaining that people don't agree with you.

I am an orthodox Christian apologist, and I believe that posts such are yours are intentionally attempting to mislead people about what Christianity is. If you intend to continue to misrepresent Christianity, your misstatements will continue to be pointed out -- and you are welcome to respond, of course.


Well thats a little better


I don't represent anything for starters, again this was informational...and yes intending to spark a discussion/ debate on the subject that was quoted. I enjoy hearing others opinions on religious matters. Its not my fault people can't handle themselves in a conversation... Btw sorry for the swearing



What people don't seem to understand about Paul is that he was specifically charged with bringing the message of Christ to the Gentiles. He was, without question, not a "heretic", unless one believes that only a Jew can be a Christian (which was a common belief in the early church,) and if Paul's teaching is wrong, there is no salvation in Christ for anyone other than those I listed.


Do you know which parts of the bible Paul supposedly wrote? Or dictated...


There is little point to just randomly quoting someone else's work without providing your own input or perspective, since no one can question or debate an author who is not here. If you don't believe that Paul is a heretic, then why take offence, and if you do, then the questions I raise are valid ones that you should consider, rather than swearing and complaining that people don't agree with you.


Why is there no point? It was an artical i read, i was interested in others opinions on it... i don't see the problem my friend. And i take no offence to what is said about it... I do when people attack me for no reason though...

I didn't even comment on the artical... Perhaps everyone should stop jumping down my throat and read what i said... Do i really need a disclaimer in stars and brackets? Perhaps a cascading warning?

And when did i complain that no one agrees with me?!?

Madness!!




edit on 3-4-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


LOL, welcome to ATS. If you think you get a hard time trying being a cop on here. Tough crowd.

Seeashrink



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeashrink
reply to post by Akragon
 


LOL, welcome to ATS. If you think you get a hard time trying being a cop on here. Tough crowd.

Seeashrink



Haha, i don't mind i just wish people would read before spouting off like that...

Amazing how religious people attack at the first sign of someone disagreeing with them...


edit on 3-4-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Well, like I said, you presented it in a non confrontational way.
Seeashrink



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Paul taught heresies in his epistles? Interesting...

What do you think about Peter? Do you think Peter knew false doctrine from true doctrine? Yes or no?






top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join