Can you reject Paul and still be a "Christian"?

reply to post by Lucius Driftwood

I'm sorry, but I cannot see any evidence to back up your claim that Paul's 'Thorn in the flesh' was/had anything to do with his encounter on the road to Damascus.

Do you have any sort of background in the Christian religion?
I mean, have you read the Bible, or listened to sermons in church, or read books about the Bible or Christianity?

Paul received his sight back after prayer and laying on of hands.

According to Acts, it was.
I'm not saying any of those things said in Acts are true. This is maybe your disconnect and probably difficult to get your head around, the concept of every bit of Acts being absolutely false.
So, if you can get to the point of understanding what it would be like to think that, then you can begin to understand my point.
I am describing the thinking of the person making up these stories in Acts and why he would make them say the things they do.
There is actually a study of this, so I am not making it up.
Its called literary criticism and has been going on for the last 200 years in academia by biblical scholars.

So Acts is not reliable?

It's whatever the opposite of reliable is.

Is the book of Luke reliable?

There is a very difficult science involved in what can be trusted in Luke and for people not versed in that, my advice is to not read it at all.

Man's greatest fall and separation from GOD is to do with his heart, not some physical ailment he may or may not have.

I agree with you, and not with the fabricated explanation I was trying to describe.

Text I would say that if indeed he wasn't genuine, he played right into the plan unwittingly. Yes the Catholic Church were the early keepers of the Bible and until Martin Luther came along nobody knew any thing other than what the Church told them. Thank God for Martin Luther!

reply to post by overseer1136


@ overseer

I respectfully disagree with your understanding of the church. The first Christian church was the Jerusalem church and it thrived for well over forty years. The Roman butchers decimated this church in 70 AD as well as the entire city and then usurped the very church that they took from the Hebrews. This first Christian church was known as the Apostolic church and it was here that the Apostles preached and taught about Jesus. Paul was accepted by the disciples as well as the Apostles of Christ and in fact corrected Peter who falsely practiced Jesus' doctrine.

The reason that many Christians of today have a problem with Paul's teachings is simply that we have more of his letters to study. If we had the same amount of letters from all of the Apostles and disciples I am quite certain that they also would have their feet to the fire. Christianity today does not even resemble that of the Jerusalem Church and most fault finders of today are border lined Secularists

I agree with you in that Christians should be aware of how they interpret the NT. The NT is full of rabbinic Judaic teachings which are far from complete Christian teachings and the reason that they are not complete is simply that we do not have the sermons or teachings of the apostles. The Roman Catholic Church is still in denial as to Easter and the amount of days Jesus was in the tomb as well as the truth of resurrection. They have taught these poor fools the big lie for centuries and what they teach is not even biblical by any means.

I have heard from many Christians who have trouble with Paul's teachings but have never had any one give me the exact reasons and scriptures that need be corrected. Most of the criticism that I have read are personal conflicts of belief and not biblical based.

reply to post by Akragon


Dear Akragon,

I see that your thread has been very lively. I will not go back and read all of the comments, I am quite sure that you are more than capable of responding to anything that was said by others.

reply to post by Akragon


Paul = The words of Rome.

I'll give that there are a few lines that actually contain wisdom but even a blind squirrel can get a nut sometimes.

IMHO, the majority of the NT (excepting the "red letters" which are based on age old concepts) is crap designed to give allegence to the Church/Rome.

The Roman Empire coopted the concept of Christianity and built it into their own designs...period.

That being said, regardless of how much horse crap you pile on top of a Truth, the light of said Truth will finally show through....you might just have to dig a bit longer to get there.

If the Romans had been square with actually wanting to empower the laity, they wouldnt have excised so many books, exterminated so many "heresies", or used FEAR to promote their religion.

Show me ONE place where J.C. used fear to gain deciples. You cant do it.

Rome was built with fear and extortion via fear....and it continues to this day.

So yes. Crap can the stuff from Paul.

reply to post by felonius

Show me ONE place where J.C. used fear to gain deciples. You cant do it.

Actually I can...

Though im getting the impression you don't know who you're speaking to... So lets just agree to "crap can" paul and his writing

Fair enough?

reply to post by Akragon


Paul was a lunatic. He never new who Jesus was. Christianity was not a movement when Paul supposedly existed. Paul is the architect of the bible. A crazy man that you would find in any large city with a billboard sign.

The Holy Bible.....brought to you by a crazy man named Paul.

I believe that paul is the father of modern christianity and that the teachings of paul And christ are sometimes VERY different...

Last year I noticed that a lot of people were attacking Paul's writing so I was determined to get to the bottom of it.

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 ever done this has been attacked and mercilessly killed by the TPTB.

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

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
I believe that paul is the father of modern christianity and that the teachings of paul And christ are sometimes VERY different...

I've asked plenty of people plenty of times, and never had a reasonable response.

Please cite an instance where Paul and Christ clearly differ on a fundamental issue.

Hint: Do your own work... all of the sources you're going to find on the Internet are easily refuted as being either taken out of context or not really being in conflict.

If you beleive the gospel he is an evangelist. If you don't you can reject it. Doing the 2000 year old private investigator story however is baseless.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
I believe that paul is the father of modern christianity and that the teachings of paul And christ are sometimes VERY different...

I've asked plenty of people plenty of times, and never had a reasonable response.

Please cite an instance where Paul and Christ clearly differ on a fundamental issue.

Hint: Do your own work... all of the sources you're going to find on the Internet are easily refuted as being either taken out of context or not really being in conflict.

And correct you are. So I won't bother trying to explain my view of bible as a political document and the fact that it is biasd. Or The fact that that history rarely happened the way that we are taught. I doubt that it will change your mind but I found the book "The dead sea scrolls conspiricay" A compelling read. As you said... Do your own reasearch. No offence intended but I don't remember convincing anyone of anything by arguing with them. At the end of the day you will see what you want to see... as do I. Everthing is relative. Be well my friend.

reply to post by hudsonhawk69

No offence intended but I don't remember convincing anyone of anything by arguing with them. At the end of the day you will see what you want to see...

Not everyone is like that.
I have my mind changed every day, by people who present a good argument for what they believe.
Just going back and forth saying the same thing may not be fruitful.
Doing research takes a lot of time and effort and when someone obviously has done that work, then it is worthwhile taking a minute to see what those results are.

reply to post by adjensen


So basically what you're saying is that we have to use a source other than the bible to prove Paul contradicts Jesus? How is anyone supposed to do that when the bible is the only source on Paul's teachings?

The contradictions ARE there, you just refuse to see them.

reply to post by Murgatroid


Paul words are not "Gods" words..........or Jesus' words.

reply to post by Murgatroid


Paul traveled all across the Mediterranean, someone had to pay for all those trips he was taking. Who could it have been? Hmmmm.... maybe the Romans? He was one of them you know.

Why would Rome pay a guy to go around the area and preach the gospel they were trying to suppress? Probably because he was spreading a false message. Paul's message is totally different from Jesus'. They're not even close, it's so obvious!

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by hudsonhawk69

 

No offence intended but I don't remember convincing anyone of anything by arguing with them. At the end of the day you will see what you want to see...

Not everyone is like that.
I have my mind changed every day, by people who present a good argument for what they believe.
Just going back and forth saying the same thing may not be fruitful.
Doing research takes a lot of time and effort and when someone obviously has done that work, then it is worthwhile taking a minute to see what those results are.

Wow... I don't usually get that response. I have three young children (under 4) I will try to put some time aside to give your relplythe due response that it deserves...

reply to post by Akragon


Quick question:

can you kill hundreds of thousands of people to possibly millions, oppress millions more worldwide through history, rape/beat and kill people from your own religion/SECT and from other religions


Can you really still follow Christianity?



R O F L

with all that on your shoulders, pauls the least of your worries ^^

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

Yes because the faith is centered on Christ... not Paul, or it would be called Paulstianatity

Then Jesus wasted a lot of energy choosing disciples and spending the entire time of his ministry teaching them, then sending them out to spread the Gospel.

I recall when a man asked Jesus 'what can I do to follow you' and Jesus replied, 'Sell everything you have and follow me' (not exact verbatim)
That would incline me to think Jesus chose His disciples based on what He could see in their hearts. Though after Jesus was crucified and rose and departed to heaven, it would be the disciples choosing followers as the following grew very quickly and to large proportions. Take for instance when John was granted amnesty on Patmos near the end of His exile.imprisonment and the 'Caesar of the time' died and the new ruler was pro Christian....

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

So basically what you're saying is that we have to use a source other than the bible to prove Paul contradicts Jesus? How is anyone supposed to do that when the bible is the only source on Paul's teachings?

Where did I say you had to use a source other than the Bible? What I said was don't just copy and paste from some anti-Pauline website, because all that stuff (that I've seen, anyway,) has been refuted.

The contradictions ARE there, you just refuse to see them.

Well then SHOW US. Chapter, verse, and what the fundamental contradiction between Paul and Jesus is.

Personally I would have to say no. The reason being that if you reject all the letters that Paul wrote, you would have to reject the teachings of the apostles as well, and if you reject the teachings of the apostles, you would have to reject the teachings of Jesus too. This is true because the apostles met with Paul and discussed the their philosophy or religion. Remember that Paul was an ardent persecutor of Christians for a while, even executing them, so I believe that he truly did have a miraculous experience to do such a turnaround. And if God/Jesus felt it was a good thing to give this experience to Paul, which was not all that pleasant, I am guessing that he would have gotten the correct message. So basically, if the Creator trusted him enough to appoint him messenger to all non-Jews, then it is difficult to reject his teachings and still be a Christian.

Paul gained absolutely nothing, and lost a whole lot concerning what most people believe to constitute a "good" life. He gave up everything for Jesus, whom he had never even met in real life while Jesus was alive, and again he was an ardent persecutor of followers of what was deemed "the Way," before it was termed Christianity. And Paul was imprisoned, beaten, and suffered mentally and physically for the rest of his life, especially in dealing with the early churches and their habit of misconstruing the actual teachings of Jesus. I think that Paul's experiences defy human nature to such a degree that there had to some sort of miraculous intervention at hand, otherwise he would never have changed the way he did.

The same is true of the apostles, who gave up everything, many even being martyred without denouncing what they were preaching. There are many powerful stories like this that we have, most of which were documented by outside sources at the time so there is little chance they were simply made up, so logic really leads to believing what the apostles and Paul did. So all in all, I do not think one can denounce Paul's teachings and still be Christian. There are too many spiritual truths that agree with what Jesus and his apostles taught found in Paul's letters, and coupled with the arguments I made initially, Paul's writings are the backbone of doctrine.

But there is something very important here that people often overlook. Paul never intended for his letters to be used the way that we ended up using them. These were mostly personal letters to the upstart churches around the Mediterranean Sea, addressing their individual problems. Had Paul known that we would use his writings to outline the faith, I am certain that he would have taken a much more methodical approach to things. I think he would have addressed every single tenet of the faith from a to z, instead of focusing on the things that the early churches were having trouble with.