Paul, the first heretic?

[Elijah John]

I have long wondered why the correspondence of Paul have taken on the authority of revealed, sacred Scripture.

At best, I will contend that Paul was a theologian who had some good things to say, but as Z stated in another thread, hijacked Christianity and tailored it for a Roman-Pagan audience.

Judaism+Mediterranean Paganism =Trinitarian Christianity seems to be the formula.

But the way I see it, Paul's interpretation of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, is a theological interpretation, and are his OPINIONS of the significance of the event.

But don't it beat all,* whole Churches and denominations have been founded on Paul's opinions!

And also as Z pointed out, that Paul never met Jesus in person, only in a vision. James, the brother of Jesus did not readily accept him as an apostle, according to many historical Jesus scholars.

Question for debate, did Paul hijack Christianity, making him the first or most influential heretic, or was Paul a true apostle of God and Christ?

Is it wise to found a whole religion on one man's vision, in this case from the road to Damascus?


(*Thanks to the inspiration of Joey K for the very useful phrase)

[Zzyzx]

.

The writings attributed to Paul/Saul contain very little (almost no) discussion of the supposed "vision." If I understand correctly the "vision" tale is told in some detail in Acts (only).

Written by Luke, a probable disciple of Paul's.

Luke is an assigned name (pseudonym) for a writer whose identity is disputed by scholars and theologians.

In any case, I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that Paul/Saul supposedly had a monumental, life-altering experience meeting a "resurrected Jesus" in a "vision" yet he hardly mentions that experience in his writings – though it is detailed by someone else in Acts.

And it fits his profile, not relying on the historical Jesus or his Jerusalem followers for his authority, but Jesus coming to him in visions.

Agreed that Paul/Saul distances his preaching from a "historical Jesus" and the Jewish Jesus movement and focuses upon his own interpretation of the character he supposedly saw in a "vision."

I'd have to look it up, but I believe some of Paul's own followers in Asia Minor expressed similar doubts about his convenient visions.

It is not unreasonable to question the "vision" tale.

[ThePainefulTruth]

.

The writings attributed to Paul/Saul contain very little (almost no) discussion of the supposed "vision." If I understand correctly the "vision" tale is told in some detail in Acts (only).

Written by Luke, a probable disciple of Paul's.

Luke is an assigned name (pseudonym) for a writer whose identity is disputed by scholars and theologians.

Luke was a physician of Antioch mentioned by Paul in some of his epistles. Luke and Acts were attributed to Luke by early church fathers. Yes anything can be disputed, even the existence of Jesus. Luke/Acts may have been assigned to him but it's more likely he wrote them. In any case is wasn't a pseudonym.

In any case, I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that Paul/Saul supposedly had a monumental, life-altering experience meeting a "resurrected Jesus" in a "vision" yet he hardly mentions that experience in his writings – though it is detailed by someone else in Acts.

He mentioned it nonetheless, amongst his other visions.

And it fits his profile, not relying on the historical Jesus or his Jerusalem followers for his authority, but Jesus coming to him in visions.

Agreed that Paul/Saul distances his preaching from a "historical Jesus" and the Jewish Jesus movement and focuses upon his own interpretation of the character he supposedly saw in a "vision."

His interpretation of Christianity is an undeniable association with Mithraism from Paul's native Tarsus.

I'd have to look it up, but I believe some of Paul's own followers in Asia Minor expressed similar doubts about his convenient visions.

It is not unreasonable to question the "vision" tale.

It is now among the ones who rely so completely on blind faith alone which Paul taught and established. How can we so easily dismiss the criticism of Paul's own contemporaries and followers about his heavy reliance on unverifiable visions. Revelation, the foundation on sand of every established religion in the world.

[Burninglight]

My friend God is in control of what got canonized not man. Either we trust God or we don't. God said His word is established forever in heaven and Jesus prayed "Thy (God) will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

I trust, even if Muslims don't, we have the central gospel message in tact in spite of abrogation and interpolation which we know about in the more recent translations of the Bible, because we have the ancient manuscripts to compare and contrast with one another.

Muhammad may not have had the Bible in versions like today, but the versions we have today were built directly off of what was in circulation from centuries before Muhammad's birth.

We didn't have a Christian Uthman burning the torah and gospel like what happened in the 7th century to your Quran. You have no choice but to trust that the non prophet Uthman recompiled the Quran you use today honestly.

In fact, there is evidence that he tampered with the Quran if you compare it to the most ancient script of the Quran found in a derelict Mosque at SANAA, Yemen, the oldest copy of Qur'an was found by a German Scholar Dr. Puin who photographed it, and he found it to be different from the copy of Qur'an which the Muslims brag about today as being perfectly preserved.

The truth is Muslims today cannot prove perfect preservation of the Quran, and even if they could, it is not prove it is from my God and Creator!

Finally, what Muslims call the spurious letters of Paul are not in conflict with the red letter passages in the canonical gospels. It goes along perfectly with all Scripture when you have the spirit of God in you showing this truth to you; it also goes along with Jesus saying "I having many things to show you, but you cannot bear them now." The Spirit of Truth worked in and through Paul as He does us in and through Christians still today.

Paul was commissioned directly by Jesus to suffer for Him by sharing revelation that pulled Christianity together in perfect unity. He was beat and stone and prisoned suffered hunger and starvation and eventually martyrdom for what? Did he do it to preach a tale? I thank God He send us Paul; otherwise, Christianity would be adrift out at sea like a ship without rudder, and Christians today would be at the doctrinal mercies of Islam and many other religions and cults. Paul alone is the one who out did false theologies before the evasions of false religions and cults that flood the world today.

[myth-one.com]

I have long wondered why the correspondence of Paul have taken on the authority of revealed, sacred Scripture.

At best, I will contend that Paul was a theologian who had some good things to say, but as Z stated in another thread, hijacked Christianity and tailored it for a Roman-Pagan audience.

Question for debate, did Paul hijack Christianity, making him the first or most influential heretic, or was Paul a true apostle of God and Christ?

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Paul was chosen by God to spread the gospel message to the Gentiles. He was simply doing what God commanded him to do! Most people "chosen" by God resist following God's commands. This was likely the case with Paul.

Saul turned from persecuting Christians to become one of the greatest Christian apostles -- Paul. And he wrote the one Bible verse which best describes me and my life:

There is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of which I am chief. (I Timothy 1:15)

Others chosen by God possessed some human frailty, which made them unlikely candidates for their mission ahead. Paul apparently had none. So when God chose him to spread the gospel to the Gentiles, incredibly He gave Paul a "thorn in the flesh":

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. (II Corinthians 12:7)

In Galatians, Paul describes his infirmity as a temptation:

And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. (Galatians 4:14)

Now, consider the following verse written by Paul:

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do. (Romans 7:15)

And compare that verse with the definition of "compulsion" as used in psychology:

Compulsion: a strong usually irresistible impulse to perform an act that is contrary to the will of the subject.

Was Paul's thorn in the flesh a compulsion? Someone suffering from a compulsive behavior will recognize themselves in Romans 7:15 as listed above. That is, what they desire to do (stop the compulsive behavior) they do not. What they do not desire to do (the compulsive behavior) they do. Paul may have been an alcoholic, a womanizer, or something more serious, if indeed he suffered from some compulsion. Paul prayed for God to remove his "thorn":

For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. (II Corinthians 12:8)

Describing his affliction as a "thing" or "it" further indicates that Paul suffered from a compulsive behavior. Mental problems are difficult to comprehend since we cannot "see" them. Therefore, we describe these problems as abnormalities, things, weird, crazy, etc.

Paul made a great discovery which is today part of all twelve step rehabilitation programs. That discovery was that he was not sufficiently powerful to stop the behavior on his own. He needed help from a higher authority!

Regardless of what Paul's thorn in the flesh was, God refused to remove it. Therefore, Paul learned to take pleasure in his infirmities:

For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. (II Corinthians 12:8-10)

Paul's escape from his "temptation" was the realization that his weakness made him a stronger witness for Jesus. God made him weak so that others could see what God could accomplish through such a weak person! Regardless of how weak due to physical or mental problems, we are all here for a reason. Never, ever believe that you are too weak to fulfill your mission! The weaker you are, the more spectacular your accomplishment will be for God's glory. Is it more impressive that a strong man runs a world record 100 meter sprint, or that a man who never walked before rises up and walks?

Question for debate, did Paul hijack Christianity, making him the first or most influential heretic, or was Paul a true apostle of God and Christ?

Is it wise to found a whole religion on one man's vision, in this case from the road to Damascus?

Paul was an apostle chosen and intentionally handicapped by God. Paul rose above his thorn in the flesh to fulfill his mission.

The fact that a whole religion was based on Paul's writings proves beyond any doubt that he successfully completed his mission!

[Zzyzx]

.

Paul was chosen by God to spread the gospel message to the Gentiles.

How do you know this? How do you know that Paul/Saul wasn’t chosen by "Satan" to corrupt and hijack the teachings of Jesus? How do you know that Paul/Saul's teachings were not from his own ego?

Yes, you can guess, or propose, or insist that "God chose Paul/Saul" – but that is just an OPINION that cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 53 by Burninglight]

What is the evidence that the Bible has more authority to claim it speaks for God than does the Quran?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 54 by myth-one.com]

Paul was chosen by God to spread the gospel message to the Gentiles.

As with all "revelation", there is no possible corroboration and we must rely completely on the word of a fallible, and in this case corrupt, human. He kept his Herodian heritage and his Roman citizenship a secret until he needed it to save his skin from the Jews he had defrauded and betrayed.

[myth-one.com]

Paul was chosen by God to spread the gospel message to the Gentiles.

How do you know this? How do you know that Paul/Saul wasn’t chosen by "Satan" to corrupt and hijack the teachings of Jesus? How do you know that Paul/Saul's teachings were not from his own ego?

Yes, you can guess, or propose, or insist that "God chose Paul/Saul" – but that is just an OPINION that cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate.

As with all "revelation", there is no possible corroboration and we must rely completely on the word of a fallible, and in this case corrupt, human. He kept his Herodian heritage and his Roman citizenship a secret until he needed it to save his skin from the Jews he had defrauded and betrayed.

I have long wondered why the correspondence of Paul have taken on the authority of revealed, sacred Scripture.
.
.
.

But don't it beat all,* whole Churches and denominations have been founded on Paul's opinions!

Yes, Christianity is now common and available throughout the world. Gee, it seems that Paul succeeded.

But you two guys seem to think that it was all some kind of fraud, scam, or lie based on your posts under this forum.

Are all Christians victims of a scam?

Or perhaps simply ignorant?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 58 by myth-one.com]

Yes, you summed it up pretty well, but it's a little early to say that Paul succeeded, given the time scale we're working with in the universe and all. And there's no guarantee that Truth, justice and righteousness will overcome in the long run--that's up to how dedicated the forces of good and the forces of evil stack up. Remember, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.�

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes, Christianity is now common and available throughout the world. Gee, it seems that Paul succeeded.

Yes, Paul/Saul seems to have succeeded in imposing his views onto the emerging religion. Could that be because he was an agent of "Satan?" (Can you rule out the possibility of evil influence?)

But you two guys seem to think that it was all some kind of fraud, scam, or lie based on your posts under this forum.

My actual position (that you might like to attempt to dispute) is that it cannot be shown that Christianity is based upon anything more substantial than imagination, conjecture, opinion, testimonial, emotional / psychological episodes (including claimed "visions") -- and could well be fraud, scam or lie.

Are all Christians victims of a scam?

Perhaps -- if 1) Jesus was not "divine", and/or 2) Paul/Saul hijacked the emerging religion and made it reflect his teachings predominantly over those of Jesus

Or perhaps simply ignorant?

I would not assume that, but others may if they wish. There are studies that show negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence / education. Conclude what you wish from that.