Paul a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus

[justaguy313]

You might imagine that Paul as a follower of Christ would have jumped at the chance to learn from the twelve men who lived with and learned from Jesus in the flesh but that’s not what Paul did. It was a full decade after Jesus’s death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem then he went out preaching and teaching his own gospel in Asia Minor for another ten years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around 50 AD. It was only then 20 years after the crucifixion that Paul
met the rest of the Apostles for the first time. Paul did not preach the same thing as the Twelve Apostles and there was constant friction between him and the Jerusalem church about one issue in particular the law. Tensions eventually boiled over and cause Peter and Paul to come to blows.
When Peter visited Antioch he clashed with Paul over whether or not Gentile Christians needed to uphold the law. We only get to hear Paul’s side of the story of course but if we take his epistle at its word the two men came to an agreement. Paul would go forth as an apostle to the Gentiles while Peter would preach to the circumcised but there is a problem there. The agreement which Paul speaks of contradicts the book of Acts which states that Peter not Paul was chosen by God to minister to the Gentiles. In Acts chapter 15 verse 7 Peter said:

“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles

might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.”

~ Acts 15:7

Nevertheless, Paul claimed to have a different gospel than Peter and the other apostles, the
gospel of the uncircumcised a gospel which he

“Didn’t receive from any man nor was he taught it”

~Galatians 1:12

His gospel came purely from revelation and therefore couldn’t be verified by anyone as truthful and yet Paul’s new gospel spilt the religion of Christianity into two distinct confessions. One rooted in Judaism and a version tailored for the Gentiles. Concluding this chapter of Galatians, Paul argues that his way is the correct way because eventhough Jesus said:

“ Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord,Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the

one who does the will of my Father…”

~ Matthew 7:21

 

[1213]

You might imagine that Paul as a follower of Christ would have jumped at the chance to learn from the twelve men who lived with and learned from Jesus in the flesh but that’s not what Paul did. It was a full decade after Jesus’s death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem then he went out preaching and teaching his own gospel in Asia Minor for another ten years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around 50 AD. It was only then 20 years after the crucifixion that Paul
met the rest of the Apostles for the first time. Paul did not preach the same thing as the Twelve Apostles and there was constant friction between him and the Jerusalem church about one issue in particular the law...

I think Paul is greatly misunderstood, because he says about law:

But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully...
1 Tim. 1:8-10

 

[Rival]

But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully...
1 Tim. 1:8-10

Not that Paul wrote this, if scholars are right...

 

[Twilight Hue]

According to Christian mythology, Paul clearly contradicted

Matthew 24:23

He believed and pointed to the messiah when told he was not supposed to.

Paul is not an apostle at all , but a complete fraud.

 

[justaguy313]

According to Christian mythology, Paul clearly contradicted

Matthew 24:23

He believed and pointed to the messiah when told he was not supposed to.

Paul is not an apostle at all , but a complete fraud.

Paul in the New Testament says more than Jesus Christ himself does. There's more quotes about him than there is from the main character himself. And in addition to the writings of Paul you have the Acts of the apostles which are written by Luke. And Luke also never met Jesus Christ. He has taken everything from Paul. And it's also very widely believed that he wrote the Gospel of Luke itself. And now we're going into the four main gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and one of the narratives is written by Paul. And when you ask about the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, majority of the scholars tell us that they were written much later by people who never met Jesus Christ.

 

[justaguy313]

I think Paul is greatly misunderstood, because he says about law:

But we know that the law is good, if a man uses it lawfully...
1 Tim. 1:8-10

Basically, Paul argued that when Jesus died so too did the law. The old covenant between God and man was overturned in favor of a new one. One by which all sins are forgiven of the one who simply says I believe. There is just one major problem with Paul’s logic though. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus appeared to the twelve after the crucifixion saying this:

“ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations… and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

~ Matthew 28:19-20

 

[Estro Felino]

The problem is that the Second Letter to the Corinthians sounds very interesting from a psychological point of view.
It was addressed to a Greek community, but the most common pronoun is I, me, etc....
I , I , I. It's like a therapist session, turned into a letter.
It seems to me that he was a tormented soul. That doesn't mean he wasn't an apostle. He was.
But we don't see such peculiar psychological analysis in the other apostles' Epistles, much shorter because the message had to be immediate and direct.

 

[justaguy313]

The problem is that the Second Letter to the Corinthians sounds very interesting from a psychological point of view.
It was addressed to a Greek community, but the most common pronoun is I, me, etc....
I , I , I. It's like a therapist session, turned into a letter.
It seems to me that he was a tormented soul. That doesn't mean he wasn't an apostle. He was.
But we don't see such peculiar psychological analysis in the other apostles' Epistles, much shorter because the message had to be immediate and direct.

If Jesus never called himself God, how did he become known as God? The Pauline epistles are sprinkled with statements conflating Jesus with God. Paul refer to “Christ, who is God over all” in Romans Chapter 9 verse 5 and in Titus chapter 2 verse 13: “ Our God and Savior Jesus”

It seems like a blatant contradiction but perhaps it suited Paul’s grand agenda to misguide people. If people are worshipping Jesus as God, they are associating others with him undercutting the very foundation of monotheism. Not only did he called Christ God, he revamped Christ’s image. If Jesus was God he couldn’t be seen as an ordinary man. He had to be seen as celibate. If you know anything about Jesus today it’s that Jesus unlike all the messengers before and after him was supposedly celibate. But what exactly do the scriptures say? The answer is absolutely nothing. The Gospels never specify whether Jesus was married or unmarried, the idea of celibacy was somehow superior to marriage came entirely from Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 verse 7 Paul wrote:

“ I wish all were single just as I am.”
~ 1 Corinthians 7:7

To help prevent the desire to be married Paul said:

“It is good that a man should not touch a woman.”
~ 1 Corinthians 7:1

Paul sexual asceticism came to shape and color the Christian faith as we know it today celibacy is practiced by Roman Catholic priests and nuns but where did Paul get this stance from? It certainly wasn’t Jesus because as Paul admitted himself:

“ I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.”
~ 1 Corinthians 7:25

Had Jesus been celibate, Paul would certainly have invoked him as an example when arguing for celibacy but he doesn’t. Never once does Paul argue that Christians should be celibate because Jesus was celibate. For one we know that Jesus’s apostles were married. In fact, Jesus famously resurrected Simon Peter mother-in-law from the dead as recorded in the Gospels and the Gospel of Matthew records Jesus affirming the sanctity of marriage quoting Old Testament scripture saying:

“ Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
~ Matthew 19:4-6

Despite what Jesus said Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians said that all unmarried people should not seek to get married. Why might Paul want to spread this doctrine of celibacy? What would it mean for the future of Christianity? Well if marriages stop so to do children. Dramatically reducing the number of Christians born into the world. Today we might call Paul a eugenicist but he took himself as an example of the celibate life. He never married a woman, a fact which is so shocking once we hear what Paul had to say about the status of women. Jewish culture in the first century was decidedly patriarchal but Jesus came along and refused to treat women as inferior. The Gospels writers each testified that Jesus treated women with respect in opposition to the cultural norms. He spoke to women in public, he healed women, he allowed women to sit at his feet and learn from him and we know from the Gospel of Luke that Jesus journeyed from village to village with a caravan including female disciples. There was Mary called Magdalene, Susanna and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means. The Gospel of Mark states that the women who were present at crucifixion had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him. Given that Jewish women at this time were not to learn the scriptures or even leave their households. Jesus’s message was distinctly different in liberating for women. So it stands to reason that any true apostle of Jesus would also embrace female leadership. That’s not what Paul did at all. Unlike Jesus, Paul said that women shall remain silent in his epistle to the Corinthians Paul says:

“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, Just as the law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husband at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”
~ 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ~

And Paul also says:

“ I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”
~ 1 Timothy 2:12~

But doesn’t this fly in the face of Jesus’s actions? Three days after the crucifixion when Jesus makes his comeback, he doesn’t appear first to Peter or even to one of the other twelve men, he appears to a woman Mary Magdalene and sends her on a mission. He says

“Do not hold on to me for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them…” Mary (Magdalene) went to the disciples with the news: “ I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.”
~ John 20:17-18~

 

[Estro Felino]

If Jesus never called himself God, how did he become known as God? The Pauline epistles are sprinkled with statements conflating Jesus with God. Paul refer to “Christ, who is God over all” in Romans Chapter 9 verse 5 and in Titus chapter 2 verse 13: “ Our God and Savior Jesus”

It seems like a blatant contradiction but perhaps it suited Paul’s grand agenda to misguide people. If people are worshipping Jesus as God, they are associating others with him undercutting the very foundation of monotheism. Not only did he called Christ God, he revamped Christ’s image. If Jesus was God he couldn’t be seen as an ordinary man. He had to be seen as celibate. If you know anything about Jesus today it’s that Jesus unlike all the messengers before and after him was supposedly celibate. But what exactly do the scriptures say? The answer is absolutely nothing. The Gospels never specify whether Jesus was married or unmarried, the idea of celibacy was somehow superior to marriage came entirely from Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 verse 7 Paul wrote:

“ I wish all were single just as I am.”
~ 1 Corinthians 7:7

To help prevent the desire to be married Paul said:

“It is good that a man should not touch a woman.”
~ 1 Corinthians 7:1

Paul sexual asceticism came to shape and color the Christian faith as we know it today celibacy is practiced by Roman Catholic priests and nuns but where did Paul get this stance from? It certainly wasn’t Jesus because as Paul admitted himself:

“ I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.”
~ 1 Corinthians 7:25

Had Jesus been celibate, Paul would certainly have invoked him as an example when arguing for celibacy but he doesn’t. Never once does Paul argue that Christians should be celibate because Jesus was celibate. For one we know that Jesus’s apostles were married. In fact, Jesus famously resurrected Simon Peter mother-in-law from the dead as recorded in the Gospels and the Gospel of Matthew records Jesus affirming the sanctity of marriage quoting Old Testament scripture saying:

“ Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
~ Matthew 19:4-6

Despite what Jesus said Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians said that all unmarried people should not seek to get married. Why might Paul want to spread this doctrine of celibacy? What would it mean for the future of Christianity? Well if marriages stop so to do children. Dramatically reducing the number of Christians born into the world. Today we might call Paul a eugenicist but he took himself as an example of the celibate life. He never married a woman, a fact which is so shocking once we hear what Paul had to say about the status of women. Jewish culture in the first century was decidedly patriarchal but Jesus came along and refused to treat women as inferior. The Gospels writers each testified that Jesus treated women with respect in opposition to the cultural norms. He spoke to women in public, he healed women, he allowed women to sit at his feet and learn from him and we know from the Gospel of Luke that Jesus journeyed from village to village with a caravan including female disciples. There was Mary called Magdalene, Susanna and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means. The Gospel of Mark states that the women who were present at crucifixion had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him. Given that Jewish women at this time were not to learn the scriptures or even leave their households. Jesus’s message was distinctly different in liberating for women. So it stands to reason that any true apostle of Jesus would also embrace female leadership. That’s not what Paul did at all. Unlike Jesus, Paul said that women shall remain silent in his epistle to the Corinthians Paul says:

“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, Just as the law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husband at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.”
~ 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ~

And Paul also says:

“ I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”
~ 1 Timothy 2:12~

But doesn’t this fly in the face of Jesus’s actions? Three days after the crucifixion when Jesus makes his comeback, he doesn’t appear first to Peter or even to one of the other twelve men, he appears to a woman Mary Magdalene and sends her on a mission. He says

“Do not hold on to me for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them…” Mary (Magdalene) went to the disciples with the news: “ I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.”
~ John 20:17-18~

The real question is: why did people believe He was God?

Because of the Gospel. Before that, all the people used to believe in the law of the fittest. Only the fittest will survive, like the wolf survives, by eating the innocent Lamb.
Jesus destroys this totem: by saying that He was the Lamb, and that He succumbed because of people's wickedness, but it's better to be a victim than a perpetrator. Whereas the law of the fittest says: it's better to be a perpetrator than succumbing as victim.
Jesus destroys the law of the fittest.
That's why people believed He was God.

As for celibacy...well, it's a personal choice. I think that sex is not sinful.
I believe it is sinful to believe man is doomed to sin. That's not true. It's a Satanic falsehood.

 

[justaguy313]

The real question is: why did people believe He was God?

Because of Paul's teachings and usurpatiton of the Jesus's position. He completely changed the law that Jesus brought and hijacked christianity.

The question that arises is also who wrote the New testament as we know it today. Codex Alimentarius and Codex Sinaiticus are both written in Greek. The question is, in what language did Jesus speak to his disciples? It was Aramaic. So how come did all these Greek guys take charge?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Paul in the New Testament says more than Jesus Christ himself does. There's more quotes about him than there is from the main character himself. And in addition to the writings of Paul you have the Acts of the apostles which are written by Luke. And Luke also never met Jesus Christ. He has taken everything from Paul. And it's also very widely believed that he wrote the Gospel of Luke itself. And now we're going into the four main gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and one of the narratives is written by Paul. And when you ask about the gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, majority of the scholars tell us that they were written much later by people who never met Jesus Christ.

I'm convinced most of the Bible is written and authored by the early Catholic Church.

 

[1213]

Not that Paul wrote this, if scholars are right...

How do they know?

 

[1213]

Basically, Paul argued that when Jesus died so too did the law. The old covenant between God and man was overturned in favor of a new one. One by which all sins are forgiven of the one who simply says I believe. There is just one major problem with Paul’s logic though. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus appeared to the twelve after the crucifixion saying this:

“ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations… and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

~ Matthew 28:19-20

What is commanded is not necessary the same as the law of Moses. But, the idea that no law or commandments is valid is also problematic in that, if nothing is wrong, none has sin and there is no need for forgiveness. Basically the idea of forgiveness requires some kind of law or rule.

I think Paul is greatly misunderstood, if people think he revoked the law. His point is that if person obeys the law, it doesn't make him righteous. Righteous person obeys the commandments freely, because he thinks it is good and wants to do so. Unrighteous person may obey the law, because he thinks he must do so. I think that is one of the most important lessons of Jesus and Paul. People should be righteous inside also, not only outwardly, then their works are also.

And about the old covenant. By what the Bible tells, people broke it before Jesus. That is why God prepared a new one, as He had announced long before.

For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did-n't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen,{TR reads "neighbor" instead of "fellow citizen"} Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the great-est of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Heb. 8:8-12 (Jer. 31:31-34)
Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deut. 30:6-9

And by these one can know the people broke the previous covenant. But, God doesn't brake it, even if He makes a new one.

But if you will not listen to me, and will not do all these commandments; and if you shall reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant; I also will do this to you: I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away; and you will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will eat it.
Lev. 26:14-16
I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.
Lev. 26:33
Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them ut-terly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Yahweh their God; but I will for their sake remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am Yahweh.
Lev. 26:44-45

 

[justaguy313]

I'm convinced most of the Bible is written and authored by the early Catholic Church.

This is the oldest manuscript. It's in Greek, which kinda makes you wonder and opens all sorts of questions.

Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rival]

How do they know?

By reading the letter and comparing the written style with those other Pauline letters (grammar, sentence construction, word usage etc.). Compare the theology, outlook and so on.

 

[Rival]

I'm convinced most of the Bible is written and authored by the early Catholic Church.

What do you mean?

 

[1213]

By reading the letter and comparing the written style with those other Pauline letters (grammar, sentence construction, word usage etc.). Compare the theology, outlook and so on.

I don't think that is a good reason. People can write with different styles. I think also my style is not the same now than before. And the theology is not in my opinion that different and it also is something that can change in some way, when person gets more understanding. No Christians is exactly the same that he was when he became Christian after a long time. But, obviously there should not be big contradictions. So, can you tell what is the difference in this theology?

 

[justaguy313]

What is commanded is not necessary the same as the law of Moses. But, the idea that no law or commandments is valid is also problematic in that, if nothing is wrong, none has sin and there is no need for forgiveness. Basically the idea of forgiveness requires some kind of law or rule.

I think Paul is greatly misunderstood, if people think he revoked the law. His point is that if person obeys the law, it doesn't make him righteous. Righteous person obeys the commandments freely, because he thinks it is good and wants to do so. Unrighteous person may obey the law, because he thinks he must do so. I think that is one of the most important lessons of Jesus and Paul. People should be righteous inside also, not only outwardly, then their works are also.

And about the old covenant. By what the Bible tells, people broke it before Jesus. That is why God prepared a new one, as He had announced long before.

For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did-n't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen,{TR reads "neighbor" instead of "fellow citizen"} Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the great-est of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Heb. 8:8-12 (Jer. 31:31-34)
Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deut. 30:6-9

And by these one can know the people broke the previous covenant. But, God doesn't brake it, even if He makes a new one.

But if you will not listen to me, and will not do all these commandments; and if you shall reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances, so that you will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant; I also will do this to you: I will appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and make the soul to pine away; and you will sow your seed in vain, for your enemies will eat it.
Lev. 26:14-16
I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.
Lev. 26:33
Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them ut-terly, and to break my covenant with them; for I am Yahweh their God; but I will for their sake remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am Yahweh.
Lev. 26:44-45

My beliefs about covenants that God has made with mankind are explained here:

The Seven Covenants of God – The Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light

Learn about God’s Covenants throughout time.

theahmadireligion.org

You can freely quote whatever you disagree with so we all can have a meaningful discussion. We can also open a new topic if you want to discuss that, so that we don't go astray from the thread which is about Paul.

 

[Rival]

I don't think that is a good reason. People can write with different styles. I think also my style is not the same now than before. And the theology is not in my opinion that different and it also is something that can change in some way, when person gets more understanding. No Christians is exactly the same that he was when he became Christian after a long time. But, obviously there should not be big contradictions. So, can you tell what is the difference in this theology?

It's a big topic and covers all of Paul's letters. I am not always in agreement with scholars on this (such as scholars who believe I Peter was not written by Peter, but I err on the side that Peter did). What you need to be aware of in arguments is that people will raise this objection and argue that Paul didn't write it based on a scholarly majority consensus.

One of the notes in my Revised New Jerusalem Bible says of I Tim 1:9,

'Although this passage starts with a quotation of RM 7:16, the purpose of the Jewish law is here only to check the wicked, a view common in the Stoic philosophy of the time. For Paul the Law was far more challenging, see Rm 7; Ga 3:10.'

The earliest canon of the NT didn't include both Timothys and Titus. It is suspected that they hadn't been written yet or if they were, were not considered authentic. Both views leads to non-Pauline authorship given the 140 date.

Some think that Clement of Rome, an early Christian writer (d. 99 ad), aludes to Timothy earlier but we don't know.

The earliest attestation we have is from Irenaeus in in the late 2nd. c. By this time of the early church historian Eusebius (d. 339 ad) he considers them legit and undisputed, but Eusebius is 50/50 is his reliability for a lot of things (for example he tells us Jesus wrote or had someone write a letter to a foreign king, and that Origen castrated himself, which are just legends).

It's up to you.

 

[justaguy313]

What is commanded is not necessary the same as the law of Moses. But, the idea that no law or commandments is valid is also problematic in that, if nothing is wrong, none has sin and there is no need for forgiveness. Basically the idea of forgiveness requires some kind of law or rule.

I think Paul is greatly misunderstood, if people think he revoked the law. His point is that if person obeys the law, it doesn't make him righteous. Righteous person obeys the commandments freely, because he thinks it is good and wants to do so. Unrighteous person may obey the law, because he thinks he must do so. I think that is one of the most important lessons of Jesus and Paul. People should be righteous inside also, not only outwardly, then their works are also.

The year is roughly 36 AD, the place Jerusalem, this is the holy city where the teachings of Christ once rang out into the air but now just a few years after the crucifixion, the winds have changed direction and some people are on a hunt for Christian blood. An angry mob zeroes in on a godly man by the name of Stephen drags him out of the city and begins to stone him. They lay their coats in front of a young man called Saul of Tarsus who fully consented to Stephen’s death and later admitted.

“ And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.”
~ Act 22:20

This story alone is shocking enough but this was not the only time Saul got his hands dirty. Saul was born into a strict Jewish family and spent his youth studying under the famous Rabbi Gamaliel the man who trained him as a Pharisee. These are the same Pharisees whom Jesus referred to as Vipers and sons of the devil. Saul’s zeal for the law led him to become an inquisitor of the Jerusalem temples priesthood. Saul was a blood hound and admitted to mercilessly chasing and killing many Christians. According to the book of Acts, Saul was:

“Still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples”
~ Acts 9:1

When he had a transformative experience on the road to Damacus, a vision of the resurrected Jesus. It was that experience which allegedly changed everything, Saul became Paul and declared himself a freshly converted apostle of Christ but there is a problem with this story, Paul can’t quite get the details straight. It is considered a red flag when a person can’t keep their story straight when detectives work to solve a crime they test witnesses on the consistency of their accounts if the story keeps changing, suspicions arise. You might assume that a vision of Jesus would be memorable enough to stick in someone’s memory but the so-called Apostle Paul tells three different versions of his operation on the road to Damacus recorded in the book of Acts. In Acts chapter 9 verse 7 we find one account where Paul claims that his travel companions did not see Jesus but heard his voice. And in Acts chapter 22 verse 9 we find another version of the story they:

“Saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me”
~ Acts 22:9

In one version Paul is blinded for three days in another he makes no mention of such a thing. We are left wondering which version should we believe but perhaps a more important question to ask is why does this all matter? It matters because the entire validity of Paul as a messenger hinges on this story. This is the single proof he used to convince people to take him seriously as a messenger from God having never met Jesus in the flesh, this is all he has to go on and it just so happens that it cannot be verified by anybody. There is no mention of Paul in the Gospels by Jesus or anyone else for that matter nobody gives Paul the title of apostle other than Paul himself. So we have to ask these questions was Paul a man who saw the error in his ways and turned his life around or did he carry out his original agenda utilizing a different strategy destroying the Christian faith from within. In any case one thing is certain, Paul’s claimed to Apostleship directly contradicts what Jesus taught. Throughout his ministry, Jesus had many disciples, at one he amassed followers in the thousands but there was always an inner circle of 12 men handpicked by Jesus. That number twelve was no accident there was a specific purpose behind it. Talking about his second coming Jesus said:

“Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the son of man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
~ Matthew 19:28

These words demonstrate just how important the sacred number twelve is. How could 11 or 13 apostles judge twelve tribes? The disciples themselves understood the significance of this number. After Jesus left them, the remaining 11 apostles set out to replace the fallen one from among them Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus. Praying for divine guidance the men drew lots and in the end they reported that God chose Matthias to be the 12th disciple. There was one important criteria for the selection. Therefore it is necessary to choose

“… one of the man who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.”
~ Acts 1:21-22

So imagine the confusion of the 12 disciples when years later Paul came along and inserted himself into the equation as the thirteen disciple. Paul a man who never met Jesus certainly didn’t qualify to be one of them but that didn’t stop Paul from making some dramatic changes to the religion of Jesus and the early Christians did not consider Paul to be an authority in the same right as the 12. One of the most notable new concepts which Paul brought to Christianity was the abolishment of the Old Testament law. Claiming to speak on behalf of Christ, Paul said:

“ For sin shall no longer be your Master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.”
~ Roman 6:14

He claimed that:

“ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole””
~ Galatians 3:13

Basically, Paul argued that when Jesus died so too did the law. The old covenant between God and man was overturned in favor of a new one. One by which all sins are forgiven of the one who simply says I believe. There is just one major problem with Paul’s logic though. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus appeared to the twelve after the crucifixion saying this:

“ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations… and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”
~ Matthew 28:19-20

And Jesus clearly commanded them to keep the commandments:

“ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill them…”
~ Matthew 5:17

Jesus was a reformer. His mission was to bring things back to the old ways of theology. He came to guide people back to the religion of God. Jesus the long-awaited Jewish Messiah affirmed the message of the Hebrew prophets before him. He adhered to the Jewish law and never once indicated that the law of the Old Testament prophets would or should be abolished. In fact he said:

“ It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law.”
~ Luke 16:17

So why did Paul come out and teach the opposite just as Jesus said:

“…If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
~ Matthew 19:17