1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Paul Didn't Know Jesus

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by idav, Dec 5, 2017.

  1. idav

    idav Being
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    17,583
    Ratings:
    +2,502
    Religion:
    Pantheist
    It is the claim that the self appointed apostle Paul was visited by Jesus. Even if that were true, Paul, from his writings, doesn't appear to know Jesus. It doesn't appear that he knows the gospels, either, the ones dubbed John, Matthew, Luke and Mark. Here is a big example.

    In 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 we see Paul refer to himself as a "father through the gospel". What gospel would that be, his letters, the tanakh? In Matthew 23:9 Jesus is reported to give a warning. To "call no man father for there is only one father and that's God."

    Paul talks as one who had heard the religion and became "saved" but doesn't have the context that the Jesus appointed apostles had from walking with Jesus. Paul was even said to have "sharp disagreement" with the apostles. Acts 15:36-37. I can only speculate what that shar disagreement might have been but we know Paul was prepared to his grace through belief, a salvation for the gentiles outside the law. Paul is missing the greatest commandment and even the golden rule, doesn't really understand the core message of love that Jesus exemplified through all words and actions.

    In 1 Corinthians 5:11 Paul says not even to associate with sinners which is in stark contrast to the Jesus "he without sin cast the first stone" and the Jesus who ate with sinners. Mark 2:13-17.

    Too many red flags from Paul in my view. Thoughts or objections?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Ratings:
    +1,156
    Religion:
    Christian
    In that verse you quote, Jesus said I came to call the sinners to repentence. The "sinners" Jesus ate and drank with were repentant sinners. Those calling them sinners were the scribes and pharisees who only knew them by their pasts. Paul saying to have nothing to do with sinners means those who do not repent.

    Paul is called an Apostle by Peter.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Grandliseur

    Grandliseur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,324
    Ratings:
    +290
    Religion:
    Christian
    Strange that you mention a scripture that clearly tells us what the disagreement was about and then say that you don't know what the disagreement was!
    36 And after some days Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us return now and visit the brethren in every city wherein we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they fare. 37 And Barnabas was minded to take with them John also, who was called Mark. 38 But Paul thought not good to take with them him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39 And there arose a sharp contention, so that they parted asunder one from the other, and Barnabas took Mark with him, and sailed away unto Cyprus; 40 but Paul choose Silas, and went forth, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord. 41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.​
    The disagreement is clearly described, the contention was that matter. Both were obviously determined in their decisions.

    As to Paul, in every respect he follows Jesus' edicts and only helps us understand things as none other has done.
    He didn't ask to be called Father, but was father to many he brought in as disciples. When a person brings others into the fold of Christ, there develops a parental feeling from that one to the other. Women feel motherly and men feel fatherly toward their children in Christ; however, none would ever want to be called that.

    The gospel you ask what is, is simply the Gospel of Christ, the Gospel of Salvation.
    Romans 1:16:
    For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. ​
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,022
    Ratings:
    +514
    It's paul(s) Paul is a plural. In Evolutionary development of thinking metphysic texts are pluralities, that ascribe to a single name, in science orthodoxy science self selects specifically and names it and creates a plurality body of orthodoxy. It's like inverted from each other held in tension.
    Religion changes just as rapidly as science but it does so differently than science. The change happens in religion without awareness. We can see that in creationism. Religion isn't alone in that phenomena, since creationism is argued as if it's textual and argued against as if it's textual its not remotely textual at all. Not remotely in the same reality. Not even wrong wrong.
    Dealing with both the text and ones own thinking is really really difficult in modern culture. I only know that stepping out works bit there may be other ways.
     
    #4 David T, Dec 5, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
  5. idav

    idav Being
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    17,583
    Ratings:
    +2,502
    Religion:
    Pantheist
    Paul just goes that extra mile to go "and don't even eat with them" is a direct contrast to anything close to what christ would say or do, Jesus was feeding the sick and hungry.

    Even from Peter is still not Jesus appointed. Matthew 16:13
     
  6. wizanda

    wizanda Hairy doesn't mean scary;beard doesn't mean weird
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,240
    Ratings:
    +1,207
    Religion:
    Øneness
    On my first reading of the Bible noticed a list of about 21 points where Paul blatantly contradicts Yeshua, then on further investigation found a list of noble prize winners and award winning theologians who had also noticed....

    Here is our current list of contradictions
    , though there are loads more as now been debating it 13 years; unfortunately Christianity is built on the false gospel of John, Simon the stone (petros), and Paul's teachings, thus you won't get very far at convincing them to follow Christ.

    In my opinion. :innocent:
     
  7. Kemosloby

    Kemosloby Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    4,886
    Ratings:
    +1,156
    Religion:
    Christian
    Peter didn't appoint Paul as an Apostle, he recognized Paul was an Apostle appointed by Jesus. Paul also fed the hungry and healed the sick. Paul would at least eat with Gentiles while Peter more and more went back to eating with only other Jews. Jesus had limits but had few failures such as sinners who would not repent. The woman at the well who had many husbands and had been currently living with a man she was not married to, she showed no guilt or remorse, failed to give Jesus water. Jesus told her "you have no husband" meaning she was not saved. A woman doing all that is par for the course today. We can assume any worse sinners would have a similar end. So the quote of Paul makes perfect sense even without all that. "Have nothing to do with those who turn the grace of God into a license for immorality".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    6,094
    Ratings:
    +4,894
    Religion:
    none
    You missed out the preceding sentence which changes the context significantly: "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world."

    He's basically saying it's not our place to judge non-believers, but we should hold those in their communities accountable for their actions. If you claim to be a Christian, but your actions don't match, then you are a negative influence.

    So it only applies to hypocritical Christians, not everyone. It's a pretty tame statement really.

    Paul said the law is written on the heart, so your conscience will tell you what is right. He was more of a liberal and reformist than Jesus was really. Augustine summed up Paul's teachings as "Love and do what you will" and he was a major influence on the more liberal Christian factions that arose.

    Early Christianity was open to multiple 'pagan' influences in part because of Paul's more open-minded attitudes.

    I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Christian scripture, but I also think a lot of the 'bad' Paul quotes are from books he is not considered to be the author of. And anyway, expecting any 2000 year old scriptures to not contain any things which sound hopelessly outdated to modern sensibilities is asking a bit too much.

    I don't think the "good Jesus/bad Paul" narratives really hold up though and the religion of Paul would be more open-minded than the religion of Jesus.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    33,861
    Ratings:
    +2,067
    I've been telling people that for years.....

    and I think I've done so here at the forum as well

    and seems strange that someone who brutally persecuted Christians
    would end up writing half of the New Testament

    I suspect that fall from his horse .......that blinding light
    was a stroke

    Ananias came to heal him (sent by God)

    some kind of injury was relieved and sight regained

    and Saul was no longer Saul

    he became Paul

    sounds like a stroke to me.....
     
  10. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,576
    Ratings:
    +502
    Religion:
    Catholic
    The word gospel simply translates to 'good news', and does not here refer to the written Gospels. So Paul is preaching the 'good news' of Christ.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,576
    Ratings:
    +502
    Religion:
    Catholic
    It is better to judge by Paul's own account rather than by the embellishment given to the episode by Luke.
     
  12. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    33,861
    Ratings:
    +2,067
    even Jesus would have said......

    If I testify of Myself my testimony is false
    but I testify of My Father and therein you know my Word is true

    (something like that)
     
  13. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,576
    Ratings:
    +502
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Except here we are concerned with the resurrected not the earthly Jesus. Paul's experience was unique.
    "It appears from this verse that Christ appeared to Paul, not by an angel, as Haymo thinks (Comment. on Apocalypse, c. ii.), but in person; not in a vision, as He appeared to him in Acts xxii. 18, nor in a trance, as is recorded in 2 Cor. xii. 2, but in the air in bodily form; for it was in this way that Christ appeared to Cephas, James, and the other Apostles; moreover, if it were any other kind of appearance it would be no proof of the resurrection of Christ. The appearance of Christ alluded to here is the one at Paul’s conversion (Acts ix. 3), when he saw Christ before the bright light blinded him."
    Cornelius a’ Lapide
     
  14. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    33,861
    Ratings:
    +2,067
    at what point do we decide (centuries after).....which is true?

    I will abide that Saul fell from his horse having been blinded by a bright light

    he became a different person altogether when healed

    still sounds like a stroke to me

    I'm not saying it wasn't spiritually dealt
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Phantasman

    Phantasman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2017
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +43
    Religion:
    Christian gnosis
    Paul got his understanding through the Holy Spirit, the same where Jesus got his understanding. The Spirit entered Paul just as it did Jesus (at the first chrism). Pauls teachings (canon and non canon) are the results of the understanding of the parable of the seed, by Jesus.

    Luke 8:
    Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

    The Gospel is the seed. Pauls teachings are understanding. It is through Paul that the Spirit continued what Jesus sent it to do.

    John:
    Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

    Ephesians:
    (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

    Paul taught the hidden truth (gnosis).
     
  16. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    33,861
    Ratings:
    +2,067
    I'm going to say nay to that

    the seed is spriit
    it falls to ground (body)
    some of it to the pathway and trampled
    some of it to stony ground and fails to root
    some of it to weeds and is choked

    some of it to fertile soil where it takes root and grows

    the seed is not the gospel

    it's you
     
  17. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,576
    Ratings:
    +502
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Paul was transformed by an event, an encounter, much as the 11 were transformed at Pentecost. Paul himself never includes details of this event as did Luke, and further states that he did not consult with 'flesh and blood'. He believes himself an apostle because he witnessed the Resurrection, 'He appeared last of all to me".

    I guess through continued questioning, stripping away the nonessentials, leaving the core of event itself. Would there have even been a mission to the Gentiles without Paul?
     
  18. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    21,744
    Ratings:
    +7,779
    Religion:
    ecumenical/unaffiliated/attend wife's Catholic church
    The "in" thing nowadays for some is to throw Paul under the bus by having him contradicting that which Jesus taught, but I frankly don't buy it. With his past, if Paul hadn't eventually win favor with the Twelve, why would they want to have anything to do with him, and yet we know he met at least three times with them as covered in Acts.

    Where there is a difference, imo, is that Jesus taught more with general platitudes whereas Paul and the others had to try and work more with specifics. Would have Jesus agreed with all of Paul's "specifics"? Possibly not.

    Plus it appears that Paul basically deified Jesus, and maybe Jesus would not have approved of that, thus wanting more attention on God and less on himself.

    At least those are my impressions.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Phantasman

    Phantasman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2017
    Messages:
    215
    Ratings:
    +43
    Religion:
    Christian gnosis
    The spark of life becomes a raging fire (within). This is the chrism. The baptism of fire.

    I always laugh when I hear the misunderstanding of water and fire baptism. The catholics teach that you need physical water. Yet how do you baptize in physical fire? Do you cover your body in fire as you do water? Is one physical and the other spiritual?

    (10) Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes."- Gospel of Thomas

    Man fears the fire Christ brought. Ignorance. The spark of life ignites the kindling within us, and we become spiritual fire. The spark cannot ignite soaked wood.

    The story of Eden is fulfilled by Christ to John:
    "And I shall teach you (pl.) what is the mystery of their life, which is the plan which they made together, which is the likeness of their spirit. The root of this (tree) is bitter and its branches are death, its shadow is hate and deception is in its leaves, and its blossom is the ointment of evil, and its fruit is death and desire is its seed, and it sprouts in darkness. The dwelling place of those who taste from it is Hades, and the darkness is their place of rest.

    "But what they call the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is the Epinoia of the light, they stayed in front of it in order that he (Adam) might not look up to his fullness and recognize the nakedness of his shamefulness. But it was I who brought about that they ate."- Secret John

    Epinoia is the spark of life, the spirit, that gave man life. It was from the Father, by Jesus, to save man from the imperfect god, the liar, the murderer.

    This is the hidden knowledge Paul spoke of so many times.
     
  20. Ysa7al1Masih

    Ysa7al1Masih Ashari

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2017
    Messages:
    32
    Ratings:
    +13
    Religion:
    TheWay
    At the Jerusalem Council in Acts, Paul is shown as agreeing to the decrees of James via the Holy Spirit, let's focus on the one where it is forbidden to eat meat sacrificed to idols, false gods.

    In one epistle Paul deems obedience to this Decree for the weak brothers and says it is OK to eat this idol meat, so long as it does not become a "Stumbling block" to the weak brother. Advising them to be careful with this new "Liberty."

    Now, turn to Revelation and read what Isa al Masih states, declaring that some have been teaching the "Doctrine of Balaam" who taught Israel to eat meat sacrificed to idols, thus placing a "stumbling block" before Israel.

    The only person in the entire Bible who is a self proclaimed apostle and prophet that openly teaches that it is fine to eat idol meat, and that Isa (as) could be referring to, is Paul.

    Now if Paul was the prophet and apostle he claimed to be, why is he teaching what God, Isa(as), the Holy Spirit and the Nazarenes, the true disciples including the 12 (not 13) Apostles, unanimously forbid?

    A Prophet who teaches contrary to the Law, declares the Law a "curse", is not a Prophet of the God who is the author of Divine Law, does not call said Law a curse or mistakenly believe, contradictory with the Torah itself, that the "Law was ordained by angels."

    Paul, if even a real historical person, had one goal and never truthfully was a Nazarene, but a Herodian Jew with friends named "Herodion" (little Herod) and a "Foster brother of Herod the Tetrarch."

    What you are now trying to learn has been known since the first century and the Ebionites and Nazarenes, is recorded in the writings of Heresiologists as early as Iranaeus, which is that Paul was not who he said he was, and rejected by the" Jewish Christians " for speaking against the Law of Moses and the Covenant, which is likely the reason they became declared Heretics by Rome, and probably became Muslims, as the beliefs of the two faiths are remarkably similar.

    Pure Monotheism (no pagan Trinity), the rejection of Paul's vicarious atonement human sacrifice doctrine, rejection of the pagan belief that Isa (as) was literally the son of God, which to them was figurative and earned by Righteousness and bestowed at Baptism (see ancient MSS. of Luke which agree with the Nazarene Gospel Baptism, "This day I have begotten you" from Psalms, to King David originally.

    Which of course makes Islam the religion that is most like the original Nazarene Way, or in Arabic, Sunnah.

    Meaning that the Way of Isa (as), used as a name for the movement, is the Sunnah of the Prophets and Isa (as) a Sunni, and as one who submitted to the Will of الله a Muslim.

    Paul was, according to Tertullian, "Apostle to the heretics" meaning Marcionite "Christians" from whom the earliest and later Syrians had to distinguish themselves from by calling themselves "Messianists" according to their own Catholic history.

    An earlier history, the Doctrine of Addai, does not go beyond a mention of Paul, like the Teachings of Simon Peter and pre Roman subjugation history of Christianity in Syria, perplexing the translators from about a century ago, leading to the ridiculous assumption that Medieval corruption is responsible for the lack of mention of the "Apostle who labored more abundantly than them all" who was neither Apostle or abundant laborer according to anyone but himself, and his portrayal as a team player in Acts is one contradicted by him.

    Old news, read books, asking a question about this gets few reactions other than Christians who do not know the Bible pretending that the internal evidence in the New Testament that exposes the rivalry that Acts seeks to smooth over, doesn't, and poorly done though it is, if you are a Christian you probably won't ever realize it because Christians talk about the Bible and spew rhetoric and quote everything out of context to imagine that the Trinity is Biblical and that Isa (as) never said "The Lord OUR God is ONE..."

    And if they do actually read it, they end up asking why does a man who obviously never met Isa (as) get treated as more important than those who knew him in reality?

    Or why does Paul know nothing about the man he claims to be an Apostle of, why do the Pauline revelations conflict with the teachings of the Messiah in the Gospel?

    Or they just nod and smile, hoping that faith, not good deeds or works of Divine Law, obedience to, as Paul claims, are what matter, despite the fact that Isa (as) says to obey the Commandments if you want to inherit the Kingdom of God. (One wonders how this goes unnoticed by most Christians or rather why Paul is believed over the Messiah (as) they worship but do not follow, Christians are not the religious descendants of the Messiah (as) but of Roman Catholic paganism, dressed up as Biblical Monotheism and the religion founded by Isa (as), which is really the religion invented by Paul as Isa (as) never came to start a separatist religion.

    Originally the Jews who rejected Isa (as) as Messiah tolerated the Nazarenes, later rejecting them, neither Christian or Jew accepted them, and the popularity of Marcionite Christianity essentially forced Paul on the Romans who really created modern Christian theology, the Trinity, to make it pagan acceptable, and forced, with the power of the Emporer, fusion of a pagan theology with the Nazarene Way.

    As vicarious atonement involving a man is just st human sacrifice, and pagan, as is a dying, resurrecting godman, like Tammuz, pagan deity who women wept over according to the O. T., as with Isa (as) and the New, whose "brother" Judah was nicknamed Thomas or Tammuz Didymus, Aramaic and Greek for twin.

    Hope that helps, Salaam, if you need citations for specific passages just ask, this is from memory, and a topic I have studied to death, but Acts Jerusalem Council on circumcisionrej and Revelation 2 are the sources of the information provided, I forgot where Paul declared idol meat kosher, but I am happy to look it up.
     
    #20 Ysa7al1Masih, Dec 5, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 3
Loading...