Was Paul an enemy of the teachings of Jesus?

[Zzyzx]

.
Was Paul an enemy of the teachings of Jesus?

It is said that Paul of biblical fame was "Saul of Tarsus" who was an enemy and persecutor of the followers of Jesus until a supposed "miraculous conversion" ("vision of the resurrected Christ") turned him into a "Apostle" (a self- adopted description since he was not one of the Twelve Apostles and there is no evidence that he knew Jesus personally).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle

There is controversy concerning Paul
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... oryid=aa74 (good overview)
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... &artid=283
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=91


Questions for debate:

1. Is it possible that "Paul" REMAINED an enemy of the teachings of Jesus but simply switched his tactics in order to inject HIS teachings OVER those of Jesus?

2. Is there any reason to trust completely Paul's tale of a "vision" and sincerity of his "conversion"?

3. If this was his intent, did Paul successfully hijack the emerging new offshoot of Judaism toward his preferences rather than the teachings of Jesus?

4. Should the currently popular religion be more properly designated as "Paulism" rather than "Christianity"?

5. What teachings of "Christianity" are actually those of Paul rather than Jesus?

[msmcneal]

1. Is it possible that "Paul" REMAINED an enemy of the teachings of Jesus but simply switched his tactics in order to inject HIS teachings OVER those of Jesus?

Absolutely. I've made this argument many times here before. Paul was a sort of spy, integrating pagan elements into the Jesus movement, in order to destroy it from withing.

2. Is there any reason to trust completely Paul's tale of a "vision" and sincerity of his "conversion"?

One of the main problems with mystical experiences is that they cannot be objectively verified. Even those with Paul never stepped forward to offer their admittal of what happened. Or if they did, we have no record of it. And the two times that Paul recounts his experience, they are different.

3. If this was his intent, did Paul successfully hijack the emerging new offshoot of Judaism toward his preferences rather than the teachings of Jesus?

Again, absolutely. We see that today. His version of Christianity was the one that won over all the others.

4. Should the currently popular religion be more properly designated as "Paulism" rather than "Christianity"?

Yes. Christianity implies a follower of Christ. But most Christians blindly follow Paul's version, never questioning his intent, and not realizing what he taught was different than what Jesus, or even James, taught.

5. What teachings of "Christianity" are actually those of Paul rather than Jesus?

This is a bit harder to identify, but I think we can point out a few things now. The first would be the idea of sacraficial atonement. The Jews would have been appalled at such an idea. In the OT, God condemns human sacrifice, but in the NT, he seems to require it. Jesus' view on his death wasn't that he came to die, in order to free men from their sins, but to defeat death itself. His version of communion has more in common with various symbolic sacrificial meals in the various pagan religions, instead of the Passover seder that was partaken of by Jesus and the Apostles. His "salvation by faith alone" was different than Jesus' teachings of doing good to please God. Jesus said "not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father, which is in heaven". The idea that Jesus was God in the flesh was also a pagan idea that Paul taught that Jesus never taught. Most Christians would say that Jesus said "I and my father are one" to prove Jesus taught his own divinity. But Jesus also prayed that the disciples would be one as he and the father were one, and that the disciples would be one with him. so unless Christians are willing to admit that Jesus taught the divinity of the disciples as well, then there theory doesn't hold water.

[earendil]

.
Was Paul an enemy of the teachings of Jesus?

Paul was a weird character for sure:

Supposedly he was a Roman citizen by birth (22:28); pharasee (23:6); tent-maker (18:3) ; given authority to send any christian living anywhere to prison (9:2); wealthy (24:25); and given more protection than the emperor of rome (23:23).

Quite over-the-top I would say.

My anti-paul complaints:

1. Misinterpretation of scripture.
2. Sometimes completely contradictory to christ.
3. Long-winded (with meagre content) convoluted arguments.
4. Self contradictory.
5. Arrogant to the extreme.
6. Some evidence of self-serving for fame and money.

Was he an agent sent to undermine christianity? I doubt it. I also don't think he was just cashing in either...at least as the major motivation. Actually, I think he just wasn't completely on track.

He did make one comment, though, that I thought was a perfect description of what christianity really is. Paul said:

"We love, because God first loved us."

All this said, I can't imagine why you would care.

[msmcneal]

Was he an agent sent to undermine christianity? I doubt it. I also don't think he was just cashing in either...at least as the major motivation. Actually, I think he just wasn't completely on track

I can see where you're coming from. But remember, Paul also said that he gained at least some converts by deceit. So he wasn't completely honest in his religious dealings, either. That says to me that he was a little bit more than just misguided. I tend to see Paul as a great deceiver, personally.

[Zzyzx]

.

My anti-paul complaints:

1. Misinterpretation of scripture.
2. Sometimes completely contradictory to christ.
3. Long-winded (with meagre content) convoluted arguments.
4. Self contradictory.
5. Arrogant to the extreme.
6. Some evidence of self-serving for fame and money.

I do not disagree with your Anti-Paulism.

Was he an agent sent to undermine christianity? I doubt it. I also don't think he was just cashing in either...at least as the major motivation. Actually, I think he just wasn't completely on track.

I do not pretend to know the intentions and motivations of someone who lived two thousand years ago in a culture totally different from mine. I do not suggest that "he was an agent sent to undermine Christianity" " but question if he might have chosen to infuse his own ideas over those of Jesus " as appears he has done.

He did make one comment, though, that I thought was a perfect description of what christianity really is. Paul said:

"We love, because God first loved us."

In the country we have a saying that covers the occasional truth; "Even a blind hog finds an acorn occasionally".

All this said, I can't imagine why you would care.

I do not care about Paul OR Jesus OR Christianity on the personal level because those concepts do not influence my decisions. However, I observe that many who attempt to debate here attribute their ideas to Jesus when they seem more attributable to Paul (thus "Paulism"). I find the teachings of Jesus less offensive than those of Paul " though I favor no form of supernatural worship.

[Cmass]

Zzyzx wrote:

I do not care about Paul OR Jesus OR Christianity on the personal level

Yes, you do. You many not "care" in the sense that you might care for a loved one, but you certainly care about it's future development and potential consequences of it's advancement. At the very least, you find it the centerpiece of a grand amount of entertainment. I would guess that upon reflection you, like me, would find it's power and influence in halls of government troubling. I would argue that it affects your personal life a great deal and thus you do care about.

because those concepts do not influence my decisions.

Yes, they do. You may not consciously utilize the convoluted instructions Christianity provides but I would bet much of it is stuck in your craw more than you might at first concede - certainly more than myself - since you were raised in a religious environment and I was not.
In addition, your decisions are influenced by people around you and many of them are driven by Christianity. There really isn't any way to be completely free of such a huge influence in our society. I remember one of your great quotes....was in essence that a reason you are here is to help the fundamentalists sink their own boats. Or perhaps give them enough rope.....
You care about what happens to it and it does affect you life

Code: Select all

However, I observe that many who attempt to debate here attribute their ideas to Jesus when they seem more attributable to Paul (thus "Paulism").

Yep. I don't think most Christians have any knowledge concerning the book they follow. They don't understand it's history or construction. And the more extreme a believer is, the less curious about it they are. The most fanatical can do little more than cut and paste scriptural lines that no-doubt others tell them to paste.

I find the teachings of Jesus less offensive than those of Paul " though I favor no form of supernatural worship.

Yes, you do. Like myself, I would bet you favor a supernatural worship with the smallest footprint possible over the massive corporate, cultural and political powerhouses many of them are now. Someone worshiping the tree on there own, in their backyard has far different consequences than the massive Christian corporate and political machine mixing oil with Christianity and marching off to war with "the evil empire" and in doing so killing hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent civilians and children.
I'll vote for the little old lady and her tree before I vote for drs. (poster from another thread)

[Goat]

Was he an agent sent to undermine christianity? I doubt it. I also don't think he was just cashing in either...at least as the major motivation. Actually, I think he just wasn't completely on track

I can see where you're coming from. But remember, Paul also said that he gained at least some converts by deceit. So he wasn't completely honest in his religious dealings, either. That says to me that he was a little bit more than just misguided. I tend to see Paul as a great deceiver, personally.

There is some speculation that Paul is the 'Great Liar' that is mentioned in the texts at Qumran. Of course, since the people at Qumran only used code words for people, that will be next to impossible to determine.

[msmcneal]

There is some speculation that Paul is the 'Great Liar' that is mentioned in the texts at Qumran. Of course, since the people at Qumran only used code words for people, that will be next to impossible to determine.

I agree.
It's been about 6 or 7 years ago, but I found something somewhere online that tried to prove that Paul was the Antichrist of Revelation. I don't really remember anything about it, and I don't think I could probably find it now, but I remember it being quite interesting. Like what you were saying about the Dead Sea Scrolls, it would be something impossible to prove, but it is something interesting to think about.

[earendil]

Was he an agent sent to undermine christianity? I doubt it. I also don't think he was just cashing in either...at least as the major motivation. Actually, I think he just wasn't completely on track

I can see where you're coming from. But remember, Paul also said that he gained at least some converts by deceit. So he wasn't completely honest in his religious dealings, either. That says to me that he was a little bit more than just misguided. I tend to see Paul as a great deceiver, personally.

Actually, I could see this. He really is so far off.....

The only reason I did not accuse him of intentional disruption is because of the haphazardness of his dialogue. He seems to me to be one of those people that like to hear themselves talk. They say a lot, but actually communicate very little.

But who knows? You could be right.

[Flail]

I agree with the OP and have posted my assent on many occassions.....

It is a stretch of credibility to think that a man as grounded in Judaism as Paul...favored with Roman citizenship...given a command of men....glorifying in the stoning to death of Steven(at the time the most ardent of Christians circa 35 AD)...Paul was a commited Pharasee believing he was even special among Jews....it is unimaginable for him to have suddenly had a change of heart based upon a vision which was totally unwitnessed and unverified....he was a skilled persuader...a man of words and arrogance and vanity....his letters demonstrate he had no affinity for the valuable teachings of Jesus...he rarely mentions the parables or teachings...but rather the ritualism,idolatry and separatness that was so a part of him....he invented Grace and put Christians right back on their religious and superstitious,fearful knees from which Jesus had hoped they would arise and reform the world into one in which all men would shun religious superstitions and turn away from idolatry and toward each other....