Saul, also known as Paul, epiphany or antipathy?

In an attempt by others to prove the word of Christ, I have in here encountered quotations from man whose name was Saul. Saul, more intimately has come to be known as the apostle Paul. Paul was a man of Jewish faith who in the various letters attributed to him, claimed to have been extremely antagonistic toward the followers of Christ. So much so that he was in fact not only subversive but inhumanely cruel, until one day as he had set out on a journey to Damascus to further his causation, was blinded by the light of Christ and immediately converted to a believer.

Not to bore you with the facts of how much of the New Testament is devoted to Paul, it is important to note that the Christian scriptures of today are a magnification of what is called Pauline teachings, derived from his letters and or journeys as represented in Acts: Romans; Corinthians I & II; Ephesians: Colossians: Thessalonians I & II: and Timothy. It is from these epistles/letters that we notice how the Apostle Peter, prominent after the death of Christ, with his miraculous deeds and devout allegiance to Jesus, just disappears when Paul enters the stage.

Paul is the man who held as many personalities as required in order to ingratiate the target audience. If he needed to be a Jew, he was: a Greek, he was: a wayward soul, he was, an apologetic fellow, he was. Here was the man upon which the Christian Church was forged. It was his laws that determined which of those of Moses was no longer necessary, It was he who cemented women as being subservient to their husbands, it was he who determined women shall not preach, it was he who reversed the laws of circumcision, and it was he who denounced the jubilees and created the current rituals practised in today�s Catholic church.

This from a man whose biography in itself is contradictory:

Acts 9:4�And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, � Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?...And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:7..And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? �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.�

This from the man of whom it is said in Acts 9:17:19 was baptised by Ananias, the same who for no reason at all was mentioned earlier in Acts 5:1:5

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price�But peter said, Ananais, why hath satan filled thine heart to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?...And Ananias hearing these words fell down and gave up the ghost�

The gospel does hold within itself the truths, which we need to find because we can, and because such truths cannot be denied to all. Can we each find them all, or shall we not understand?

The conspiracy of religion is real, or there wouldn't be so many.

Actually, this is not completely true:

I too have had problems with Paul's views on women, but it turns out that the "pastoral" letters (among them the 2 letters to Timothy, where much of this anti-women stuff is mentioned)isn't penned by Paul at all. These "Pastoral Epistels" scholars belive is probably "psedunymous", that is written by someone else, but signed with Pauls name.

Actually, the historically aspects of the early christians writings are really interesting and an eyeopener and I recommend everyone to read the story behind them.

I can recommend the books

The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman

www.amazon.com...=1100538483/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/103-5690922-0085410?v=glance&s=books

and

Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by the same author.

www.amazon.com...=1100538483/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-5690922-0085410?v=glance&s=books

// k

I personally don't trust in Paul, I may be wrong, but I think he may have been misleading. I trust only in the gospels and some of the other apocrypha/dead sea writings. There's something about Paul that just doesn't feel right.

Originally posted by godservant
I personally don't trust in Paul, I may be wrong, but I think he may have been misleading. I trust only in the gospels and some of the other apocrypha/dead sea writings. There's something about Paul that just doesn't feel right.

Actually, some of the things in the gospels and Acts as well are somewhat "unhistorical".

Read the books I recommended, especially the new testament book!

They are real good!

// k

Thank you Kickass for the response. And yes, I agree with you on authorship. I did not find it necessary to address that topic directly since that was not the primary reason for my post. However, you are correct, and in fact, most of the books seem to have been authored by anonymous contributors, and well after their times, if the characters as described even lived at all. If we consider for a moment they were, one would think that Jesus coming to spread the world, would have done exactly as the apostles by recording for mankind his word. But no, we are expected to believe that years later the apostles decided to put reed to papyrus and with photographic memory or divine insight, recall word for word his movement and sayings. Yet, we know that these sayings have clashed between apostles.

Nonetheless, and as much as the replys are few, as expected given that most don't really want to think there is much deception involved in both testaments, I will offer up some more names anyway for research of their writings, to those who care to learn about the history of The New Testament.

Plato; Celsus; Origen; Eusebius, and Clement.

I agree with you fully. All gospels were penned anonymously as well as the Apocalypse (although the author calls himself John, there seems to be quite a dispute that this John is the diciple of Jesus)

Personally I think that historical studies deepens my understanding of the Bible as well as Jesus and to enable me to "see behind" some of the things that Christians "take for granted", but which is neccesarily not true or doubtful, for instance Pauls view of women.

it is also quite interesting to note that all of the Gospels have had sources that are no longer available. Scholars talk about the "Q source" and the M and L source as well. Luke and Matthew seems to have taken some info from Mark for instance, but some things from other sources.

Actually the gospels AFAIK were penned Mark, Matthew, Luke and John in that order, ranging from 50-60 CE (Mark) to 80-100 CE (john)

The "oldest" documents in the NT is in fact some of the letters by Paul.

It is also quite interesting to note that the Canon wasn't really decied upon at first and even after the Canon was "specified" different congregations held more books as "Scripture" than exists today in the NT.


/k

I disagree with you on the woman thing. Paul also gives similar instructions for men as well eg: So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. Ephesians 5:28

and he also says But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11:16


Up until the road to Damascus Paul was cruel towards Christians, don't you think the sudden change is extroadinary?

Correct - Catholicism = Pauline Christianity. Paul never actually met Jesus (not too big a deal - It is Jesus's Message that is the Most Important) - so say what you will - but if it wasn't for Paul & his Preaching to Gentiles & his easing of the Strict Rules of Judaism -> Christianity would be Extinct Today.

Originally posted by rosebeforetime
I disagree with you on the woman thing. Paul also gives similar instructions for men as well eg: So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. Ephesians 5:28

and he also says But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11:16

Is that so?

Did Paul actually say something similar about men that "he" (which is my point since Paul never wrote this) says about women in 1 Timothy 2?:

"...I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent...."

// k