PAUL ~ FALSE APOSTLE & FIRST 'CHRISTIAN' (#1 of 8)

sopherim7 wrote: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 .

I appreciate your most gracious reply ~ there is no need of any thanks, you are most welcome my dear sister.

PLU ~ Bob

Interesting reading, Bob. You make some very astute observations. I apologize if I repeat what other members have said, but I only skimmed through this thread. So let me clear my throat and defend the Mythmaker:

--Acts of the Apostles is pure Catholic propaganda. It's main theme is twofold: To make Paul seems Orthodox in his Christianity and manufacture wise Jewish roots; and to elevate Peter to his stature...two colossal Apostles spreading the right Christianity across the world...hallelujah! Yet the Paul of his letter's doesn't match the Paul of Acts. Two different characters.

--It's apparent that the Pauline Corpus has been tampered. Furthermore, such Epistles as Timothy and Titus are not his but written by later hands to make Paul more orthodox. Paul is a mystic. He was never interested in Church hierarchy, the sexes, or any structure of any kind. He was certainly temperamental, egoistic and perhaps insane, but that's what often happens when your receive gnosis and it cripples your ego. Here is a good link that reveals how Paul was corrupted:

The Fabricated Paul

I also advice anyone to read Timothy Freke and Peter Gandi's 'The Jesus Mysteries', Earl Dougherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle' or Tom Harpur's 'The Pagan Messiah'. All these books put forth great cases for Paul's Gnosticism. When you begin to read the Pauline Corpus in the original, loyal translations you'll see that Paul uses words like 'Pleroma', 'Sophia', 'Aeon', 'Archon' and other Gnostic language. He also decries the OT God and his laws. He is advocating a new rising/dying godman called Jesus Christ. Like some have said, Paul was creating a Jewish Mystery Religion, which was a good thing.

--The Gnostics thought he was a rock star. He's all over the Nag Hammadi. There is obviously a good reason for this. On the other hand, the Roman Church and Jewish Christians resisted Paul for a long time. The Church Father, Tertullian, called Paul 'The Apostle of the Heretics'. But the Church knew that he was too popular because of the Marcionites and Valentinians. So they co-opted him instead of fight him. That's why we have Acts, Timothy, Titus and interpolations in his letters.

--Paul and Simon Magus are probably one and the same. Simon Magus is both the Father of Gnosticism and the Father of Heresy. My show, 'Aeon Byte #21' makes a very good case of this. The Ebionites used Simon Magus as a coded name for Paul in their polemics. If you read between the lines, there is a direct parallel with Simon Magus in Acts trying to buy the Holy Spirit and Paul in Galatians trying to buy himself into the Jerusalem Church by raising money.

And I'm sure I've got more, but this is it right now.

Miguel

Abraxas wrote:Interesting reading, Bob. You make some very astute observations. I apologize if I repeat what other members have said, but I only skimmed through this thread. So let me clear my throat and defend the Mythmaker:

--Acts of the Apostles is pure Catholic propaganda. It's main theme is twofold: To make Paul seems Orthodox in his Christianity and manufacture wise Jewish roots; and to elevate Peter to his stature...two colossal Apostles spreading the right Christianity across the world...hallelujah! Yet the Paul of his letter's doesn't match the Paul of Acts. Two different characters.

--It's apparent that the Pauline Corpus has been tampered. Furthermore, such Epistles as Timothy and Titus are not his but written by later hands to make Paul more orthodox. Paul is a mystic. He was never interested in Church hierarchy, the sexes, or any structure of any kind. He was certainly temperamental, egoistic and perhaps insane, but that's what often happens when your receive gnosis and it cripples your ego. Here is a good link that reveals how Paul was corrupted:

The Fabricated Paul

I also advice anyone to read Timothy Freke and Peter Gandi's 'The Jesus Mysteries', Earl Dougherty's 'The Jesus Puzzle' or Tom Harpur's 'The Pagan Messiah'. All these books put forth great cases for Paul's Gnosticism. When you begin to read the Pauline Corpus in the original, loyal translations you'll see that Paul uses words like 'Pleroma', 'Sophia', 'Aeon', 'Archon' and other Gnostic language. He also decries the OT God and his laws. He is advocating a new rising/dying godman called Jesus Christ. Like some have said, Paul was creating a Jewish Mystery Religion, which was a good thing.

--The Gnostics thought he was a rock star. He's all over the Nag Hammadi. There is obviously a good reason for this. On the other hand, the Roman Church and Jewish Christians resisted Paul for a long time. The Church Father, Tertullian, called Paul 'The Apostle of the Heretics'. But the Church knew that he was too popular because of the Marcionites and Valentinians. So they co-opted him instead of fight him. That's why we have Acts, Timothy, Titus and interpolations in his letters.

--Paul and Simon Magus are probably one and the same. Simon Magus is both the Father of Gnosticism and the Father of Heresy. My show, 'Aeon Byte #21' makes a very good case of this. The Ebionites used Simon Magus as a coded name for Paul in their polemics. If you read between the lines, there is a direct parallel with Simon Magus in Acts trying to buy the Holy Spirit and Paul in Galatians trying to buy himself into the Jerusalem Church by raising money.

And I'm sure I've got more, but this is it right now.

Miguel

Hi Miguel, thanks for your responce.

When people state that the Acts of the Apostles is a fiction, and that all the letters of Paul have been corrupted to make him seem to be something that he wasn't, I cannot argue - it might well be the case, as much of the New Testament has definitely been corrupted. But when those same people state that they know what Paul really was, I must ask HOW do they know? Are they privy to some secret information which is foolproof? Where is this information? It is simply not possible to know anything certain about Paul if all the history about him has been falsified.

One other important thing to understand - you said that Paul was too popular for the Catholic orthodoxy to ignore or fight against. However, you must understand that all genuine Mystics / Gnostics ("chosen ones") are reviled and rejected by this carnal world (the vast majority of people). Therefore, if Paul had been a genuine gnostic, he would not have had a very large following - just as Yehoshua also did not! It should also be noted that the Catholic orthodoxy DID fight against ALL the various gnostic groups very successfully - so why not Paul?

PLU ~ Bob

Well, we know, by the language and textual evidence, that Paul's letters are some of the earliest Christian (or proto-Christian) writings. The Pauline Corpus is much earlier than Acts. So it's only reasonable that we take it from the horse's mouth first. For example, in the Epistles, Paul goes to Arabia after his gnosis for seven years (talk about either working something out in your head or, as some believe, learning the Egyptian Mysteries); yet in Acts, 'Luke' has Paul going to Jerusalem after his vision of the Cosmic Christ. I'll take the Arabia scenario.

As far as popularity, Paul only became the main event in Christendom long after his death in the Second Century when Marcion brought his letters to Rome and the Valentinians flourished. There is no evidence that Paul had a considerable following in the First Century. In fact, he was a mad prophet wandering the land, alone and sometimes in small groups.

Miguel

Of course, in the end, history/myths, beliefs/opinions, and dogma/doctrine matter not in the least to a gnostic. The Masters of old, and all the ancient scriptures of the world, are for the religious to worship and for the intellectuals to ponder - they are NOT for the Spiritual.

The only Truth for a gnostic exists in the ever PRESENT NOW - and not far away, but right within.

PLU ~ Bob

Admin wrote:Of course, in the end, history/myths, beliefs/opinions, and dogma/doctrine matter not in the least to a gnostic. The Masters of old, and all the ancient scriptures of the world, are for the religious to worship and for the intellectuals to ponder - they are NOT for the Spiritual.

The only Truth for a gnostic exists in the ever PRESENT NOW - and not far away, but right within.

PLU ~ Bob

Exactly! I firmly believe that mere faith is hollow and no one can convince me that dogmas are good for a person (the man who never changes his mind is like a pond of reptiles... or something like that). In one of his many lectures my Master also teaches that doctrines are in essence traps for the spirit. The Gnostic has TRUTH, and doesn't have to think. They KNOW.