Home
FAQ
Register
Log inPAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
Page 3 of 4•
Page 3 of 4 • 
1, 2, 3, 4 
Paul's teaching
by Unprofitable Servant on Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:26 am
The_Passerby wrote:
Paul has gotten a very bad name. First off, His letters were changed around, but the greatest issue with them is the fact that many wrote under the name of Paul. Such a thing happened all of time, it was often seen as a aspect of respect for the individual. But many wrote in his name, some of those letters are more of a group effect then a sole individual, and the historical Paul had nothing to do with them. This isn't to say that some of the letters don't have good things, they really are good at points, but at others they are not.
Pauls teachings (whether he wrote them or one who posed as him) have frequently been compared negatively against those of Jesus. But there is little doubt that Paul's teachings are very highly esteemed and passionately defended. How often do you hear Paul's teachings used as justification of a particular position? For example, Jesus plainly teaches that preaching for financial gain is wrong "freely you have received", but this is countered with Paul's opinion "is it a great thing if we shall reap your material things?".
Or is it works or faith? Paul says faith. No need to look further.
Although the arguments are never posed in a way that suggests that Paul is right and Jesus is wrong (plainly one of them must be), the practice is such that Paul's words are put into practice and those plain words of Jesus all too often are not. Or where do you find a "steeple-house", as George Fox called them, that does not charge their members heavily? Or where do you find a preacher who says like James "Can faith save him"?.
Jesus is often praised in words, but in practice, Jesus is all too often dispised, as He was when He walked the earth.
Re: PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
by Admin on Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:34 am
Unprofitable Servant wrote:Hi Bob,Admin wrote:
Sounds like you are equating Paul to 'Satan', or saying that Paul was a dedicated follower of Satan.
Well, that is precisely what I am saying too ~ for my definition of 'satan' (the 'adversary' / 'enemy') IS one's unenlightened (carnal) MIND, i.e. that which Paul was following.
You will find the vast majority of people (practically everyone) follow their own mind, and those in mental institutions are merely more obsessed, overpowered, or deluded with their mind than most others.
Peace, Love, & Understanding ~ Bob
Perhaps my view on this is simplistic, that God exists as a real being (although spirit) and the Evil one is a real being (although spirit), and that Heaven exists as a real place, and that Hell exists as a real place (which I only know too well).
I wouldn't say Paul is the evil one himself. In fact I strongly believe this is going too far.
We need to remember how easy it is for ourselves from time to time to be as Peter: at one moment speaking wisdom from God (Mt 16:17); the very next moment, the evil one's mouthpiece (Mt 16:23). And we should remember how an evil action or an evil word can often appear to be good, but it deceives us as it deceived Peter to suggest to Jesus to save his life in this world. And we should remember how little strength we have against this power without the grace and help of God.
It is my contention that Paul was a man, as we are, able to be misdirected. It is not good to bear ill feeling towards him. Even so, his teachings are not true. The Master said one is our teacher, and one is our father, that is God in Heaven.
Peace,
Mark
Hi again Mark
Don't misunderstand my motives in revealing Paul's errors. I bear him no ill feelings. But his writings have been the main source, the very foundation, of Christian theology, and thus have led countless billions (and I'm not exaggerating) to fall ~ even to their deaths.
But then again, that is their own fault for following blindly what they are told, so we cannot really blame Paul.
PLU ~ Bob
Re: PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
by Unprofitable Servant on Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:14 am
Admin wrote:
Hi again Mark
Don't misunderstand my motives in revealing Paul's errors. I bear him no ill feelings. But his writings have been the main source, the very foundation, of Christian theology, and thus have led countless billions (and I'm not exaggerating) to fall ~ even to their deaths.
But then again, that is their own fault for following blindly what they are told, so we cannot really blame Paul.
PLU ~ Bob
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you bore any ill feelings. I made the statement as a personal observation because when I discovered the difference between Jesus and Paul, I was angry and tempted to find all kinds of accusations and "evidence" against Paul's person. This eventually leads to speculation, which is not truth. But I have since learned that it is far better to forgive those that have taught things that are not the Truth and to hear the Master only.
Peace,
Mark
Re: PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
by The_Passerby on Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:12 am
Unprofitable Servant wrote:The_Passerby wrote:
Paul has gotten a very bad name. First off, His letters were changed around, but the greatest issue with them is the fact that many wrote under the name of Paul. Such a thing happened all of time, it was often seen as a aspect of respect for the individual. But many wrote in his name, some of those letters are more of a group effect then a sole individual, and the historical Paul had nothing to do with them. This isn't to say that some of the letters don't have good things, they really are good at points, but at others they are not.
Pauls teachings (whether he wrote them or one who posed as him) have frequently been compared negatively against those of Jesus. But there is little doubt that Paul's teachings are very highly esteemed and passionately defended. How often do you hear Paul's teachings used as justification of a particular position? For example, Jesus plainly teaches that preaching for financial gain is wrong "freely you have received", but this is countered with Paul's opinion "is it a great thing if we shall reap your material things?".
Or is it works or faith? Paul says faith. No need to look further.
Although the arguments are never posed in a way that suggests that Paul is right and Jesus is wrong (plainly one of them must be), the practice is such that Paul's words are put into practice and those plain words of Jesus all too often are not. Or where do you find a "steeple-house", as George Fox called them, that does not charge their members heavily? Or where do you find a preacher who says like James "Can faith save him"?.
Jesus is often praised in words, but in practice, Jesus is all too often dispised, as He was when He walked the earth.
Mark, hopefully you read my previous post in its entirety. I attempted to explain in as I am capable how Paul's Gnosticism is not harmonious with Yeshua's in on important points, although it doesn't make him any less relevant.
In regards the faith apart from works doctrine that the greater body of believers of the counterfeit church embraces is an aspect of corruption and confusion. I believe it is the church that really doesn't understand the Epistles and don't possess the necessary vision of a Pneumatic to perceive them with any clarity, just like the scriptures (but even more so with the scriptures, of course, since they hold Paul's letters OVER the scriptures, which is always interesting to observe). I also explained how they are contradictory in many parts. But for a Gnostic overview of what he was attempting to convey, is that one is NOT justified by following the literal letter, that in fact if interpreted literally becomes the letter that kills and spiritual death. Many don't understand that when he referred to Jews he did so in regards the fact that to be a Jew was to be of a particular mindset and did not truly refer to a group of ethnic people since it was used and applied esoterically. A Jew was one who took what is esoteric and spiritual and meant to be applied within ones self and subjects it to carnality in pursuit of seeking to fulfill the literal which profits them nothing and only invokes more obstacles for themselves...“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Rom 2:28-29 KJV). One who is a jew does not apply the Key to Knowledge, or Gnosis, he rejects the key to knowledge in their literalistic, ritualistic blindness. They serve the God of this world, as the Key to Gnosis is to apply things to yourself, within yourself to connect to your Indwelling Source and come about True Education. For example, the call for sacrifice, they literally killed animals, our innocent little brothers, when what was asked for was to sacrifice the animal within you.
Hence they are hypnotized by the literal letter and do not see the true nature of the scriptures, the Spiritual Torah that they must apply within themselves to fulfill and this is why there is a veil over it, because the people who read them do not understand its allegoric patterns, its metaphoric allusions to themselves but in their hylic and sometimes psychic minds, organic consciousness... they count figurative things as literal things. Paul's doctrine was if you live a consecrated life in The Way then you will become Spiritual and able to bring about the Kingdom, the Anointing. He was against the Pharisaic application, the reason why is that if you believe the scriptures are literal you not only put unworthy thoughts on God putting an allegory in place of the True God which people become enslaved under a God in their image, but likewise it can be dangerous (literally, look at Islam or Christianity in the Dark Ages in regards converting, and Judaism when they stoned people for anything under the sun and made killed animals at their whim when they felt guilty for doing something) and by not applying these esoteric symbols within ones self such an individual is in result not bringing about the necessary changes within self that brings about transformation and transmutation in the Light, which in not doing so keeps them in a complacent state of ignorance serving the God of this world. One isn't justified by a literal application of the Law, but the Spiritual Torah that you must fulfill within yourself is completely different, people are often trapped in the guise of the the garment of the obvious sense of the flesh and do not see the true reality of them. One of the Pharisaic mindset is one that is outward, ritualistic, and filled with carnal traditions of man, where there murders and lack of lifestyle is made excuse for as if they do God's service, when they aren't even Known by God, nor do they know themselves to know God. For instance, most Christians are Pharisaic in mindset, they go about seeking to convert others when the call for converting was to convert what is in mind, in regards their fragments of mind, their attachments, their thoughts -- to become single in mind towards the ideal (a harmonious mind), hence,“But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (Matt 12:36 KJV).
If he didn't think one had to do anything, or it was about faith apart from works Epistles would never have related such things like these, “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature” (Col 3:5 NIV) -- “…take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor 10:5 NIV).-- “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom 8:13 KJV) -- "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:12 NKJ). -- "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." (Gal 2:17-18 KJV).
Likewise the whole faith apart from works and you are saved, a contradiction to that type of thinking which is really a perverted teaching, For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.. For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries." (Heb 6:4-6;10:26-27 RSV). -- Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep"(1 Cor 11:27-30 NKJ).
hallucinations
by sopherim7 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:53 pm
i am not even going to touch on all the above other then to say wow ! i am learning a lot. iwill say though i do not condone
angel fires response , i understand the sentiments behind them,and i decided it would be inappropriate of me to make any comments any earlier as my FEELINGS would have surely be the response.i really want to print this conversation out read thru it during my prayer and study time but its not printing the first half any suggestions?i need to do this research for my self, as i dont say it is untrue, or true until i have personally had true gnosis while studying this.before i ever knew about the existence of ANY other scripture besides the bible ,that was all i read. after my beatific vision i could not stop reading it and i love it still as much today.i found that Paul was the only new testament " player " i could relate to the most
there was something that happened when i read his work, it allowed me to understand things that somehow i already knew. no matter the facts that is the framework to my realisation of being a gnostic christian.those writings stirred the fire of truth in me from coals to a rolling fire, and i always considered not only the first heretic but truly gnostic.now as far as mental illness goes , here is my bellyful he had a quasi mystical vision with the ascended master Jesus the Christ, why such a harsh label ,and references to people with mental illnesses.how does having that experience make him ill?what about the old testament visions? did the giving of visions end there?or were they crazy too? jump to the new testament believers , does this make john nuts? while he had his visiosons on patamos?or when Jesus took 2 of his followers on the mountain and they witnessed the transfiguration and 2 other heavenly beings? are they crazy?if so
then i am crazy and so is every one who has had a physical vision of light. so is any one who has chanelld from an ascended master.some one better call an ambulance for me and prepare a bed in a PADDED room cause not only did i have a vision of light, i levitated during my vision saw myself outside my body i also saw an angel, and before my vision of 9/11 i ALSO HEARD A TRUMPET, and it does not end there i heard singing of heavenly proportions for a year. i must be
really sick .to say Paul was crazy means all Gnostic's who have had supernatural experiences are not enlightened they are crazy! if Christ wanted to visit Paul on the road to Damascus how does that make Paul crazy?God can to what he wants for all things are possible.... except allowing people Tobe unveiled to see the very real spiritual world that co-exists
with us ?what about angels and demons( fallen angels,whochose to serve perdition}? in another post you said people who claim to see manifestations such as these crazy too.yhat is what i expect from a conservative baptist not a spiritually enlightened person, who lives breathes and exists in the truth.i would rather be called crazy by all men everywhere then to deny the truth of the visions GOD has given me.i will not domesticate God into something i can ever understand the workings of to me that his trying to stuff him-in a big mac box.i will also say i firmly believe i am not the only one on this site who has seen more then the light, and im sure the y would agree with me in saying , these were not visions from high up on a magic carpet ride nor induced by meds., nor were they delusions or hallucinations ting written or said by any one will ever be able to convince me that what god has crated me to see and experience of the very real spiritual world qualifies me for the coo-coo bin! these glimpse ,validates to me that i do not believe in fairy tales
God is real, God is true ,God is Spirit!what he has allowed me to see has shaped my life and given me reverence for him and all of the created seen world and the beauty, wonder and fragility of it.God created us uniquely individual each with there own charisma ,gifts, talents and abilities being members of the same body, for eyes cant walk and teeth cannot see.and feet dont sing, some are created and the veil is sheer, they can and do see things that others are incapable of ,that does not make them crazy? i often find when one does not understand something it is because they have not experienced it,so they discount it, and does that not defeat the whole purpose of being a gnostic?i believe when paul was enlightend evry thing he alrady knew was illuminated i believe that when god is teaching you it is hard to wright it as fast as he is teaching it, that makes it confusing, paul was trying to relay alot, about grace and faith to legalistic dark people and he had to be domostative to make thse points mabey he had a.d.d or a.d.h.d but he was not crazy
angel fires response , i understand the sentiments behind them,and i decided it would be inappropriate of me to make any comments any earlier as my FEELINGS would have surely be the response.i really want to print this conversation out read thru it during my prayer and study time but its not printing the first half any suggestions?i need to do this research for my self, as i dont say it is untrue, or true until i have personally had true gnosis while studying this.before i ever knew about the existence of ANY other scripture besides the bible ,that was all i read. after my beatific vision i could not stop reading it and i love it still as much today.i found that Paul was the only new testament " player " i could relate to the most
there was something that happened when i read his work, it allowed me to understand things that somehow i already knew. no matter the facts that is the framework to my realisation of being a gnostic christian.those writings stirred the fire of truth in me from coals to a rolling fire, and i always considered not only the first heretic but truly gnostic.now as far as mental illness goes , here is my bellyful he had a quasi mystical vision with the ascended master Jesus the Christ, why such a harsh label ,and references to people with mental illnesses.how does having that experience make him ill?what about the old testament visions? did the giving of visions end there?or were they crazy too? jump to the new testament believers , does this make john nuts? while he had his visiosons on patamos?or when Jesus took 2 of his followers on the mountain and they witnessed the transfiguration and 2 other heavenly beings? are they crazy?if so
then i am crazy and so is every one who has had a physical vision of light. so is any one who has chanelld from an ascended master.some one better call an ambulance for me and prepare a bed in a PADDED room cause not only did i have a vision of light, i levitated during my vision saw myself outside my body i also saw an angel, and before my vision of 9/11 i ALSO HEARD A TRUMPET, and it does not end there i heard singing of heavenly proportions for a year. i must be
really sick .to say Paul was crazy means all Gnostic's who have had supernatural experiences are not enlightened they are crazy! if Christ wanted to visit Paul on the road to Damascus how does that make Paul crazy?God can to what he wants for all things are possible.... except allowing people Tobe unveiled to see the very real spiritual world that co-exists
with us ?what about angels and demons( fallen angels,whochose to serve perdition}? in another post you said people who claim to see manifestations such as these crazy too.yhat is what i expect from a conservative baptist not a spiritually enlightened person, who lives breathes and exists in the truth.i would rather be called crazy by all men everywhere then to deny the truth of the visions GOD has given me.i will not domesticate God into something i can ever understand the workings of to me that his trying to stuff him-in a big mac box.i will also say i firmly believe i am not the only one on this site who has seen more then the light, and im sure the y would agree with me in saying , these were not visions from high up on a magic carpet ride nor induced by meds., nor were they delusions or hallucinations ting written or said by any one will ever be able to convince me that what god has crated me to see and experience of the very real spiritual world qualifies me for the coo-coo bin! these glimpse ,validates to me that i do not believe in fairy tales
God is real, God is true ,God is Spirit!what he has allowed me to see has shaped my life and given me reverence for him and all of the created seen world and the beauty, wonder and fragility of it.God created us uniquely individual each with there own charisma ,gifts, talents and abilities being members of the same body, for eyes cant walk and teeth cannot see.and feet dont sing, some are created and the veil is sheer, they can and do see things that others are incapable of ,that does not make them crazy? i often find when one does not understand something it is because they have not experienced it,so they discount it, and does that not defeat the whole purpose of being a gnostic?i believe when paul was enlightend evry thing he alrady knew was illuminated i believe that when god is teaching you it is hard to wright it as fast as he is teaching it, that makes it confusing, paul was trying to relay alot, about grace and faith to legalistic dark people and he had to be domostative to make thse points mabey he had a.d.d or a.d.h.d but he was not crazy
Re: PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
by Unprofitable Servant on Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:54 am
Hi Passerby,
It is true that the church is very divided over how to interpret Pauls epistles. Many love his work, and indeed there are many things he says that sound reasonable. But as the writer says, he became all things to all men. His doctrine is designed to maximise its approval. Truth may be popular or unpopular, but I contend that it is singular.
It is possible that his writings have been altered by others of what-ever intention, as could also have happened to other ancient writings. If that is the case, it becomes very difficult to un-scramble the egg, as it were. Hebrews should not automatically be considered a work of Paul. My suspicion is that Apollos is the likely author, but that's speculation.
Personally I don't really study Paul that much, or derive my understanding from his teachings. I don't know in what sense he was Gnostic or otherwise, although I was always of the impression that Paul was not Gnostic in the sense that his doctrine was presented as being revealed through him and nothing was left hidden. There are differnet kinds of Gnosticism though, are there not? The kind I care about is the personal gnosis that is between ourselves and our soul's maker.
Peace,
Mark
Re: PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
by The_Passerby on Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:13 am
Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Hi Passerby,
It is true that the church is very divided over how to interpret Pauls epistles. Many love his work, and indeed there are many things he says that sound reasonable. But as the writer says, he became all things to all men. His doctrine is designed to maximise its approval. Truth may be popular or unpopular, but I contend that it is singular.
It is possible that his writings have been altered by others of what-ever intention, as could also have happened to other ancient writings. If that is the case, it becomes very difficult to un-scramble the egg, as it were. Hebrews should not automatically be considered a work of Paul. My suspicion is that Apollos is the likely author, but that's speculation.
Personally I don't really study Paul that much, or derive my understanding from his teachings. I don't know in what sense he was Gnostic or otherwise, although I was always of the impression that Paul was not Gnostic in the sense that his doctrine was presented as being revealed through him and nothing was left hidden. There are differnet kinds of Gnosticism though, are there not? The kind I care about is the personal gnosis that is between ourselves and our soul's maker.
Peace,
Mark
I would rather not talk about Paul either, but the subject brought my attention again back to it. Personally speaking a lot of his Letters have never seen the Light of day in this time, because they were destroyed, some of his letters were far more open about his leanings. Consider this quote from 2nd Century Church Father Clement of Alexandria, “And further, that the same God that furnished both the Covenants was the giver of Greek philosophy to the Greeks, by which the Almighty is glorified among the Greeks, he shows. And it is clear from this. Accordingly, then, from the Hellenic training, and also from that of the law are gathered into the one race of the saved people those who accept faith: not that the three peoples are separated by time, so that one might suppose three natures, but trained in different Covenants of the one Lord, by the word of the one Lord. For that, as God wished to save the Jews by giving to them prophets, so also by raising up prophets of their own in their own tongue, as they were able to receive God’s beneficence, He distinguished the most excellent of the Greeks from the common herd, in addition to ‘Peter’s Preaching,’ the Apostle Paul will show, saying: ‘Take also the Hellenic books, read the Sibyl, how it is shown that God is one, and how the future is indicated. And taking Hystaspes, read, and you will find much more luminously and distinctly the Son of God described, and how many kings shall draw up their forces against Christ, hating Him and those that bear His name, and His faithful ones, and His patience, and His coming.’ Then in one word he asks us, ‘Whose is the world, and all that is in the world? Are they not God’s? ‘ Wherefore Peter says, that the Lord said to the apostles: ‘If any one of Israel then, wishes to repent, and by my name to believe in God, his sins shall be forgiven him, after twelve years. Go forth into the world, that no one may say, We have not heard’”.
If you look at that one part that is highlighted in the color red, you will see him telling people in his letter to read the Sibyl and other Hellenic books. Not the canonical Paul, imaging him saying that? So there was a lot of stuff going on with his Letters.
Personally speaking on a Number of occasions Paul said he did not give them the full report, but he spoke to them as babies, that he only told them Jesus Christ and him crucified, he literally states, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14 NKJ). -- “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ” (1 Cor 3:1 NAS). -- “I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able” (1 Cor 3:2 NAS). -- “Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak” (Eph 6:18-20 KJV) “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the archons of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the archons of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor 2:6-8 ) Mind you most of these are from the beginning of Corinthians, but in all honesty, it's probably the best letter he ever made.
btw all these quotes I have saved from prior research in one big file so I can pick then when I need to in order to assist a perspective I am attempt to convey if I need to when I am speaking with a Christian, or at least that's what I used to do.
Re: PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
by Admin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:23 am
SOME PERSPECTIVES ON THE THEOLOGY OF PAUL THE (FALSE?) APOSTLE
In the book 'Christ or Paul?', the Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore wrote:
"Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught.... For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message.... That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world.... The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness."
The theologian Soren Kierkegaard, writing in 'The Journals', observes:
"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"
The theologian Ernest Renan, in his book 'Saint Paul', wrote:
"True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."
The American philosopher, Will Durant; in his 'Caesar and Christ', wrote:
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ.... Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known.... Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change."
Robert Frost, winner of the Pulitzer prize for poetry in 1924, 1931, 1937 and 1943, in his "A Masque of Mercy", wrote:
"Paul, he's in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him."
James Baldwin, one of the most noted African-American authors of recent times, in his book 'The Fire Next Time', declared:
"The real architect of the Christian church was not the disreputable, sunbaked Hebrew (Jesus Christ) who gave it its name, but rather the mercilessly fanatical and self-righteous Paul"
Martin Buber, the Jewish philosopher, wrote in 'Two Types of Faith':
"The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul"
The well known mystic, poet and author, Kahlil Gibran, declared in 'Jesus, the Son of Man':
"This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name of One whom he does not know."
The renowned theologian Helmut Koester, in his 'The Theological Aspects of Primitive Christian Heresy', states:
"Paul himself stands in the twilight zone of heresy. In reading Paul, one immediately encounters a major difficulty. Whatever Jesus had preached did not become the content of the missionary proclamation of Paul.... Sayings of Jesus do not play a role in Paul 's understanding of the event of salvation.... Paul did not care at all what Jesus had said.... Had Paul been completely successful very little of the sayings of Jesus would have survived."
Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote in his "Letter to William Short":
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, in his 'Not Paul, But Jesus', declared:
"It rests with every professor of the religion of Jesus to settle within himself to which of the two religions, that of Jesus or that of Paul he will adhere."
The eminent theologian Ferdinand Christian Baur, in his 'Church History of the First Three Centuries', wrote:
"What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the lift of Jesus.... He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears."
Mahatma Gandhi, the great advocate of nonviolence, in an essay entitled "Discussion on Fellowship", wrote:
"I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus, and the Letters of Paul. Paul's Letters are a graft on Christ's teachings, Paul's own gloss apart from Christ's own experience."
Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, wrote in his essay "A Psychological Approach to Dogma":
"Saul's [Paul's name before his conversion] fanatical resistance to Christianity.... was never entirely overcome. It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925; in his 'Androcles and the Lion', wrote:
"There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus.... There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus.... It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus.... was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith."
Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, in his books 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus' and his 'Mysticism of Paul', writes:
"Paul....did not desire to know Christ.... Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded.... What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?.... The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority.... The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."
William Wrede, in his book 'Paul', informs us:
"The oblivious contradictions in the three accounts given by Paul in regard to his conversion are enough to arouse distrust.... The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for Paul's Christology nothing whatever.... The name 'disciple of Jesus' has little applicability to Paul.... Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the present day."
Rudolf Bultman, a respected theologian, wrote in his 'Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul':
"It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his....views. When the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus' teaching is -- to all intents and purposes -- irrelevant for Paul."
Walter Bauer, an eminent theologian, wrote in his 'Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity':
"If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly, the Apostle Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age."
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, in 'Paul: Roman Agent or Informer', wrote:
".... his [Paul 's] teachings -- which become the foundation of later Christianity -- are a flagrant deviation from the 'original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership.... James, the Lord's brother.... knew Jesus personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early church' in Jerusalem -- including, of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first-hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the 'Savior'. For Paul to arrogate authority to himself... is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond all recognition -- to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus.... Paul knows full well what he is doing. He understands.... the techniques of religious propaganda."
Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore wrote in 'Christ or Paul':
"The triumph of Paul's Gospel is all the more remarkable in view of the Master's repeated warnings that false teachers would arise immediately after his 'going away'. Thus we read in Matthew: 'Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them.... Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit... Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom, of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.' This warning fits Paul. who taught that entry into the kingdom of Heaven depends upon faith, i.e. by calling Jesus "Lord, Lord', and did not teach the pure way of life by which alone man can enter the kingdom. And if we apply to Paul the test 'by their fruits ye shall know them', it is abundantly clear that he was a false prophet."
Chris Bennett observes in 'Green Gold, the Tree of Life':
"Their systems were cannibalized and absorbed into... the Roman Catholic Church -- the Church of Paul... The.... Roman Catholic Church (the Paulist Church) erased and reinterpreted much of the information regarding Christ's true gospel"
Gene Savoy, in his 'The Essaei Document', wrote:
"Paul's Christianity is another matter. He taught a different kind of theology than that shared by the original disciples, who were schooled under Jesus.... Moreover, James, Peter and the disciples were members of the Essaei community, which Paul most assuredly was not.... We see, then, that Paul was the father of Pagan Christianity [Roman Catholicism] a movement based on a concept completely foreign to Jesus. James, Peter and the Essaei community.... The teachings of Jesus the Messiah were overshadowed by the teachings of Paul."
Here is another quote from George Bernard Shaw:
"The conversion of Paul was no conversion at all: it was Paul who converted the religion that has raised one man above sin and death into a religion that delivered millions of men so completely into their dominion that their own common nature became a horror to them, and the religious life became a denial of life."
This one is from Thomas Paine:
"Paul's writing is no better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told."
Finally, a quote from the Nobel Prize winner, Ernest Hemingway:
"That Saint Paul.... He's the one who makes all the trouble!"
In the book 'Christ or Paul?', the Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore wrote:
"Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught.... For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message.... That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world.... The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness."
The theologian Soren Kierkegaard, writing in 'The Journals', observes:
"In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"
The theologian Ernest Renan, in his book 'Saint Paul', wrote:
"True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."
The American philosopher, Will Durant; in his 'Caesar and Christ', wrote:
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ.... Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known.... Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change."
Robert Frost, winner of the Pulitzer prize for poetry in 1924, 1931, 1937 and 1943, in his "A Masque of Mercy", wrote:
"Paul, he's in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him."
James Baldwin, one of the most noted African-American authors of recent times, in his book 'The Fire Next Time', declared:
"The real architect of the Christian church was not the disreputable, sunbaked Hebrew (Jesus Christ) who gave it its name, but rather the mercilessly fanatical and self-righteous Paul"
Martin Buber, the Jewish philosopher, wrote in 'Two Types of Faith':
"The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul"
The well known mystic, poet and author, Kahlil Gibran, declared in 'Jesus, the Son of Man':
"This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name of One whom he does not know."
The renowned theologian Helmut Koester, in his 'The Theological Aspects of Primitive Christian Heresy', states:
"Paul himself stands in the twilight zone of heresy. In reading Paul, one immediately encounters a major difficulty. Whatever Jesus had preached did not become the content of the missionary proclamation of Paul.... Sayings of Jesus do not play a role in Paul 's understanding of the event of salvation.... Paul did not care at all what Jesus had said.... Had Paul been completely successful very little of the sayings of Jesus would have survived."
Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote in his "Letter to William Short":
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, in his 'Not Paul, But Jesus', declared:
"It rests with every professor of the religion of Jesus to settle within himself to which of the two religions, that of Jesus or that of Paul he will adhere."
The eminent theologian Ferdinand Christian Baur, in his 'Church History of the First Three Centuries', wrote:
"What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the lift of Jesus.... He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears."
Mahatma Gandhi, the great advocate of nonviolence, in an essay entitled "Discussion on Fellowship", wrote:
"I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus, and the Letters of Paul. Paul's Letters are a graft on Christ's teachings, Paul's own gloss apart from Christ's own experience."
Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, wrote in his essay "A Psychological Approach to Dogma":
"Saul's [Paul's name before his conversion] fanatical resistance to Christianity.... was never entirely overcome. It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925; in his 'Androcles and the Lion', wrote:
"There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus.... There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus.... It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus.... was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith."
Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, in his books 'The Quest for the Historical Jesus' and his 'Mysticism of Paul', writes:
"Paul....did not desire to know Christ.... Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded.... What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?.... The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority.... The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it."
William Wrede, in his book 'Paul', informs us:
"The oblivious contradictions in the three accounts given by Paul in regard to his conversion are enough to arouse distrust.... The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for Paul's Christology nothing whatever.... The name 'disciple of Jesus' has little applicability to Paul.... Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the present day."
Rudolf Bultman, a respected theologian, wrote in his 'Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul':
"It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his....views. When the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus' teaching is -- to all intents and purposes -- irrelevant for Paul."
Walter Bauer, an eminent theologian, wrote in his 'Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity':
"If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly, the Apostle Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age."
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, in 'Paul: Roman Agent or Informer', wrote:
".... his [Paul 's] teachings -- which become the foundation of later Christianity -- are a flagrant deviation from the 'original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership.... James, the Lord's brother.... knew Jesus personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early church' in Jerusalem -- including, of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first-hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the 'Savior'. For Paul to arrogate authority to himself... is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond all recognition -- to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus.... Paul knows full well what he is doing. He understands.... the techniques of religious propaganda."
Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore wrote in 'Christ or Paul':
"The triumph of Paul's Gospel is all the more remarkable in view of the Master's repeated warnings that false teachers would arise immediately after his 'going away'. Thus we read in Matthew: 'Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them.... Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit... Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom, of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.' This warning fits Paul. who taught that entry into the kingdom of Heaven depends upon faith, i.e. by calling Jesus "Lord, Lord', and did not teach the pure way of life by which alone man can enter the kingdom. And if we apply to Paul the test 'by their fruits ye shall know them', it is abundantly clear that he was a false prophet."
Chris Bennett observes in 'Green Gold, the Tree of Life':
"Their systems were cannibalized and absorbed into... the Roman Catholic Church -- the Church of Paul... The.... Roman Catholic Church (the Paulist Church) erased and reinterpreted much of the information regarding Christ's true gospel"
Gene Savoy, in his 'The Essaei Document', wrote:
"Paul's Christianity is another matter. He taught a different kind of theology than that shared by the original disciples, who were schooled under Jesus.... Moreover, James, Peter and the disciples were members of the Essaei community, which Paul most assuredly was not.... We see, then, that Paul was the father of Pagan Christianity [Roman Catholicism] a movement based on a concept completely foreign to Jesus. James, Peter and the Essaei community.... The teachings of Jesus the Messiah were overshadowed by the teachings of Paul."
Here is another quote from George Bernard Shaw:
"The conversion of Paul was no conversion at all: it was Paul who converted the religion that has raised one man above sin and death into a religion that delivered millions of men so completely into their dominion that their own common nature became a horror to them, and the religious life became a denial of life."
This one is from Thomas Paine:
"Paul's writing is no better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told."
Finally, a quote from the Nobel Prize winner, Ernest Hemingway:
"That Saint Paul.... He's the one who makes all the trouble!"
"Those who say ‘they will die first and then rise’ are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing." (Gospel of Philip)
__________________________
__________________________
Last edited by Admin on Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:11 am; edited 4 times in total
ahhh....
by sopherim7 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:34 am
first, passerby thankyou! i appreciate your wisdom, this for me has been hard as i have always felt a fondness for Paul. As a woman i would like to say this. I never thought Paul to be derrogitory of our sex,as many do.iI noticed that while the temples were not really allowing women to even be there , he chose them to lead churches. Paul told husbands to love there wives AS CHRIST loved"the church" He told wives to be submissive to your OWN husbands , there are many other referances about his treatment of women that demonstates his enlightenment especially in context of the way people thought and lived at the time. i also agree aboout the books of 1&2 corinthions,as i spoke eairlier while thinking of 1 corinthions 12:12 that brings him to his discussions of interdependance,that is a very difficult to develop in a culture we can hardley do it today especialy developing that in a JEWISH culture. he is stressing to them YOU are the body of CHRIST,CHRIST IN YOU THE HOPE OF GLORY!Moving on to gifts ,the GREATEST of these being LOVE and was that not the very message CHRIST came to get across to us. IN to 15 this is so full of CHRIST and life in him, and the death to self expreiance,talking abot the spiritual body.I find that in every one of" his " books he is preaching CHRIST .His teaching is also edifing encouraging and up lifting. In ephesians 3 when he prays that ALL people would be able to comprehend the love of GOD . how is this not preaching christ.
Now bob, you have brought some very enlightening quotes , and from some brilliant people I personally love Albert schwitser, and a good many others who i respect and admire, and iam pretty sure acedemically and inteulectually are
1,000 times smarter then i am.I also believe knowledge is useless unless it is applied wisley.I am not doubting the truth of any of there statements or any thing else i have read from you guys here but i believe it is all an opinion based on what you have recieved based on your own perception on what you interperted from it based on ones own personal knowledge and understanding . again it is about the PHENOMENOLOGY . i am saying this , GOD used PAUL to bring realisation of GNOSIS to me irregard less of what any one ELSE has to say about it or what pauls intentions were or even if it is discoverd some dude named carmine really wrote thoose books , GOD USED THEM FOR HIS WILL IN MY LIFE and they are very illuminating to me , I worship GOD in truth, IN ,THRU , and by the spirt OF CHRIST , i dont worship PAUL because he shared HIS OWN STORY OF HIS GNOSIS with the world.I also believe he did a darn good job at teachhing real meta phsical truths to the masses . HE was a planter he scatterd seed some fell on stony ground some on good earth some the birds stole and some were strangeled. MANY never under stood him ,.many still dont. alot of the problem is because Paul seemed to write every thing as one great big huge run on sentence.the punctuation makes a huge dirrerance, also it is so hard to describe things that most people will never get in there life time , people still can not comprehend GRACE THRU FAITH today im sure it sounded even nuttier then especially when ALL RELIGIONS even pagan were what you have to do , not about what he wants to do for you., all we have to do is accept him and his love and it is in him and his love and peace that makes his yoke light. Paul worked feverishley to help people understand
this. the love of GOD is in you , CHRIST , THE KINGDOM OF GOD,THE WORD,THE LIGHT IS IN YOU, it is not in the customs and rituals of your religion, PAUL FOUGHT HARD against the judisiers. HE became all things to all men so that some may be saved. HE EVEN SHAVED HIS HEAD AND WENT TO TEMPLE WORSHIP ,SPONSERD 2 OTHERS TO JOIN HIM AND PERFORMED A PURIFICATION RITUAL, HE HUMBELD HIMSELF IN DOING THAT SO HE COULD REACH THEM WITH THE LIGHT IN THE WAY HE KNEW THEY WOULD BE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING.I believe Paul to be very ahead of his times ,he constintley wanted people to grow past the milk and on to meat , telling people by now you should be teaching ,why must you revert to bottle feeding, you babies ! here are the fork and spoon FEED YOURSELF. dont you get it ? why be led around by the nose . People wanted paul to hand them christien life, paul wanted them to find CHRIST.THAT is what his purpose was HE had to be able to bring CHRIST to all those who were not JEWISH, JESUS brought CHRIST to te jewish.PAUL was hebrew AND a roman citisen, he was a lawyer and a greek philosopher therfore he could be all things to all men ,he was very unique with vast knowledge in many areas, therfore when CHRIST illuminated his understanding it was unbelievable. HE could reach so many in there own understanding, the reason for the huge PAUL following .PEOPLE are tactile and paul showed them the invisable and that attracted many to HIM when he really was compelled to attract THEM TO CHRIST, he constantley corrected people for that.I also believe PAUL caused trouble for the people who were unenlightend as CHRIST did, they wanted to KILL paul because he time and time again PROVED CHRIST Jesus to them in there OWN TORAHS and in ACTS 17 to the GREEKS because of there OWN prayers to the unknown god.
Now bob, you have brought some very enlightening quotes , and from some brilliant people I personally love Albert schwitser, and a good many others who i respect and admire, and iam pretty sure acedemically and inteulectually are
1,000 times smarter then i am.I also believe knowledge is useless unless it is applied wisley.I am not doubting the truth of any of there statements or any thing else i have read from you guys here but i believe it is all an opinion based on what you have recieved based on your own perception on what you interperted from it based on ones own personal knowledge and understanding . again it is about the PHENOMENOLOGY . i am saying this , GOD used PAUL to bring realisation of GNOSIS to me irregard less of what any one ELSE has to say about it or what pauls intentions were or even if it is discoverd some dude named carmine really wrote thoose books , GOD USED THEM FOR HIS WILL IN MY LIFE and they are very illuminating to me , I worship GOD in truth, IN ,THRU , and by the spirt OF CHRIST , i dont worship PAUL because he shared HIS OWN STORY OF HIS GNOSIS with the world.I also believe he did a darn good job at teachhing real meta phsical truths to the masses . HE was a planter he scatterd seed some fell on stony ground some on good earth some the birds stole and some were strangeled. MANY never under stood him ,.many still dont. alot of the problem is because Paul seemed to write every thing as one great big huge run on sentence.the punctuation makes a huge dirrerance, also it is so hard to describe things that most people will never get in there life time , people still can not comprehend GRACE THRU FAITH today im sure it sounded even nuttier then especially when ALL RELIGIONS even pagan were what you have to do , not about what he wants to do for you., all we have to do is accept him and his love and it is in him and his love and peace that makes his yoke light. Paul worked feverishley to help people understand
this. the love of GOD is in you , CHRIST , THE KINGDOM OF GOD,THE WORD,THE LIGHT IS IN YOU, it is not in the customs and rituals of your religion, PAUL FOUGHT HARD against the judisiers. HE became all things to all men so that some may be saved. HE EVEN SHAVED HIS HEAD AND WENT TO TEMPLE WORSHIP ,SPONSERD 2 OTHERS TO JOIN HIM AND PERFORMED A PURIFICATION RITUAL, HE HUMBELD HIMSELF IN DOING THAT SO HE COULD REACH THEM WITH THE LIGHT IN THE WAY HE KNEW THEY WOULD BE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING.I believe Paul to be very ahead of his times ,he constintley wanted people to grow past the milk and on to meat , telling people by now you should be teaching ,why must you revert to bottle feeding, you babies ! here are the fork and spoon FEED YOURSELF. dont you get it ? why be led around by the nose . People wanted paul to hand them christien life, paul wanted them to find CHRIST.THAT is what his purpose was HE had to be able to bring CHRIST to all those who were not JEWISH, JESUS brought CHRIST to te jewish.PAUL was hebrew AND a roman citisen, he was a lawyer and a greek philosopher therfore he could be all things to all men ,he was very unique with vast knowledge in many areas, therfore when CHRIST illuminated his understanding it was unbelievable. HE could reach so many in there own understanding, the reason for the huge PAUL following .PEOPLE are tactile and paul showed them the invisable and that attracted many to HIM when he really was compelled to attract THEM TO CHRIST, he constantley corrected people for that.I also believe PAUL caused trouble for the people who were unenlightend as CHRIST did, they wanted to KILL paul because he time and time again PROVED CHRIST Jesus to them in there OWN TORAHS and in ACTS 17 to the GREEKS because of there OWN prayers to the unknown god.
Re: PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
by Admin on Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:22 am
Hi Sopherim7
Well, if Paul really brought you to the Spiritual Truth of God, then he should be commended for that, and indeed he will, like all of us, receive everything he deserves from God.
PLU ~ Bob
Well, if Paul really brought you to the Spiritual Truth of God, then he should be commended for that, and indeed he will, like all of us, receive everything he deserves from God.
PLU ~ Bob
crazy people
by sopherim7 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:40 am
hi bob. i hoped you would elaborate a little more on Paul being crazy. See i guess i have sort of taken that to heart based on my personal gnosis experiances. As the experiances i have spoken about on pages previous to this post ,fit into your catagory of crazy from what i have gleened from this and other posts. I am kind of wondering what to make of that .thankyou . oh , i cannot say as really Paul him self brought this to me , it was Christ in "pauls" writings. I also am not finished researching the info you and others have provided, THANKYOU
sopherim7
Re: PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
by theeternaliam on Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:32 am
Yer experiences are "crazy", in the fact that they were not "meant to happen". Sparks of the Divine entering this realm. Christ bypassing the Rulers to awaken you. The Demiurge doesn't like seeing this happen, knowing that soon you will no longer be party to illusion.
REJOICE
REJOICE
Re: PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
by theeternaliam on Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:36 am
"HE became all things to all men so that some may be saved"
I've thought about this quote recently, because I notice sometimes I act differently around different people to appease them and "jibe" with them easier. But I know, that if I act truly, according to The Christ Within, The Tao, or my True Will, then, if they are real, I would be a guiding light to them. But by acting too much like them, how can they See The Way?
I've thought about this quote recently, because I notice sometimes I act differently around different people to appease them and "jibe" with them easier. But I know, that if I act truly, according to The Christ Within, The Tao, or my True Will, then, if they are real, I would be a guiding light to them. But by acting too much like them, how can they See The Way?
Re: PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)
by Admin on Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:39 am
sopherim7 wrote:
Well, I guess the primary consideration would be his description of his 'Damascus Road' experience. If the descriptions / stories are accurate, they indicate elements of PSYCHOLOGICAL / MENTAL / PHYSICAL & EXTERNAL experiences ~ NOT SPIRITUAL, i.e. his hearing a voice speaking in a 'human' tongue, and his eyes being blinded (instead of receiving Spiritual Vision).
There are, and have always been, many cases of people having similar hallucinatory experiences. People imagining all kinds of historic personalities talking in their heads. Paul's many adventures simply demonstrate various episodes (as I have shown elsewhere) of his having such psychological (rather than Spiritual) experiences.
It is also clearly stated in his letters that he has been 'embarrassed' by some kind of illness ~ quite possibly by having schizophrenic fits / seizures.
His teachings are also very erratic and confused at times ~ another symptom of schizophrenia.
Of course, no one can diagnose now, with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, someone who lived 2,000 years ago ~ but we must beware!
PLU ~ Bob
thank you
by sopherim7 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:04 am
theeternaliam thank you as i truly believe that very thing! also i have thought on what it means to be all things to men and i have come to the conclusion much like yours along with the only thing that truley can be all things to all men is the truth. Christ. how he manifests himself thru my vehicle to people and he is consistant with him self at all times
bob, thankyou as well,i am aware of your other discussions on that subject matter. I also have wonderd what pauls "illness"
was.i even believe paul actuually records being called crazy he was told that much learning was driving him mad,it is in ACTS26:24 where he then proceeds to defend his apparent "madness"he also claimed to be a ZELOT. Aboout Elaine Pagels i really enjoyed the lecture, i have read a couple of her books 3 or 4 years ago , im gonna have to dig them out and read them anew as i dont think i was ready to recieve that wisdom at that point , i dont think i had the understanding. Again thank you for the wonderfull supply for me to be able to acsess this type of information, i appreciate the passion you have for equipping people with the TRUTH .
bob, thankyou as well,i am aware of your other discussions on that subject matter. I also have wonderd what pauls "illness"
was.i even believe paul actuually records being called crazy he was told that much learning was driving him mad,it is in ACTS26:24 where he then proceeds to defend his apparent "madness"he also claimed to be a ZELOT. Aboout Elaine Pagels i really enjoyed the lecture, i have read a couple of her books 3 or 4 years ago , im gonna have to dig them out and read them anew as i dont think i was ready to recieve that wisdom at that point , i dont think i had the understanding. Again thank you for the wonderfull supply for me to be able to acsess this type of information, i appreciate the passion you have for equipping people with the TRUTH .
Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4