• 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!

Paul Didn't Know Jesus

idav

Being
Premium Member
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.
I tend to be suspect of all works regarding Christ same as the folks who put together the Bible canon. I don't mind all the gnostic texts maybe they are missing books. However anyone saying they had a vision in the desert or a cave should be highly suspect.
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
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, us 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, 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.

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 circumcision 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.

The spiritual truth to physical food?

Matthew:
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Nuff said for me.

Circumcision?

John:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Words from the mouth of the true God. And Paul agreed.
 
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?
Of course Paul didn't know of the Gospels. All of his epistles predate them.
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
I tend to be suspect of all works regarding Christ same as the folks who put together the Bible canon. I don't mind all the gnostic texts maybe they are missing books. However anyone saying they had a vision in the desert or a cave should be highly suspect.
lol.......

Considering Jesus told us to go into a closer and shut the door, I find that communion with God is where the physical world can be shut out from distraction. I guess a sandstorm or a slew of bats could make spiritual communion a tad difficult. :D
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I tend to be suspect of all works regarding Christ same as the folks who put together the Bible canon. I don't mind all the gnostic texts maybe they are missing books. However anyone saying they had a vision in the desert or a cave should be highly suspect.
I hear ya as one might expect from my faith statement at the bottom of my posts. I find no reason for me to believe in "miracles" regardless as to whom are supposedly doing them. However, I'm not going to the point of saying that they cannot happen.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
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?

Paul makes a great contrast with the four gospels as you say. His personality shines through more clearly than that of the gospel authors with their shared second hand sources and differing literary strengths. Not needed to look for perfection I think we can benefit spiritually from understanding these differences and discrepancies. Paul was, perhaps, uptight about sexuality and mis-called the unnecessity of marriage. After all here we are 2000 years later and us Christians still need to know how not to live in sin waiting, but not holding our breath, for the coming of Christ while raising children. If all Christians then strictly followed Paul's instructions there would be no Christians today due to a lack of being frutiful and multiplying.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
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?

Paul quotes the Gospel because Jesus preached the Gospel. He is not quoting the so called gospels in the new testament because the Gospels or the first Gospel that we call Mark was written after Paul. So paul is relating to the GOSPEL Jesus was preaching.

One can never think Paul picked up from the four gospels canonised in the new testament. Rather, some writings in the New testament has been picked up from the paulene writings.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
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?

you sure do twist things in
1 Corinthians 4:14,15,

There's nothing wrong in referring to someone as your son. Even I upon talking to someone at times I have referred to them as son. Its just a figure of speech being used.
It doesn't mean I'm their father, It's just figure of speech being used.

As for Verse 15, Paul being older than those that are younger, Paul calling them son, there's nothing wrong in that.

If you had read verse 17 Paul makes it very plain as to who is his son, "For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus who is my beloved son"

Therefore Paul making a difference between who is actually his son and those who are not actually his son.

Just because someone refers to someone as their son, does not mean they are actually their son, just a figure of speech being used. In reference to someone younger than they are.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Yeshua in the Synoptic Gospels preaches the idea there is a living Gospel, which is the Coming of God's Kingdom on Earth.

Paul's Gospel teaches the idea jesus came down here to die as a final sacrifice, and by his resurrection, we're raised with him into incorruptibility.

There is no word Gospel (G2097/G2098 good news) in the made up gospel of John by the way. :confused:

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Phantasman

Well-Known Member
Paul quotes the Gospel because Jesus preached the Gospel. He is not quoting the so called gospels in the new testament because the Gospels or the first Gospel that we call Mark was written after Paul. So paul is relating to the GOSPEL Jesus was preaching.

One can never think Paul picked up from the four gospels canonised in the new testament. Rather, some writings in the New testament has been picked up from the paulene writings.
Paul had first hand communions with the teachers that caused the Gospels. He didn't need to read anything.

2nd Corinthians:
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

It is the reason Christ said to not trust the scribes. Ink can be changed, erased and added to (by men). The Spirit.....not.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
you sure do twist things in
1 Corinthians 4:14,15,

There's nothing wrong in referring to someone as your son. Even I upon talking to someone at times I have referred to them as son. Its just a figure of speech being used.
It doesn't mean I'm their father, It's just figure of speech being used.

As for Verse 15, Paul being older than those that are younger, Paul calling them son, there's nothing wrong in that.

If you had read verse 17 Paul makes it very plain as to who is his son, "For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus who is my beloved son"

Therefore Paul making a difference between who is actually his son and those who are not actually his son.

Just because someone refers to someone as their son, does not mean they are actually their son, just a figure of speech being used. In reference to someone younger than they are.
I don't know if it is wrong or more so a bit of vanity for Paul to say that people are saved through himself. Regardless Christ had his warning, what a coincidence someone would do just that, Paul calling himself a spiritual father, and people would ignore the warning.
 

Yoshua

Well-Known Member
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?

Idav,

We may say that Paul didn't know Jesus in the first place. There is no problem with that and should not scrap the credibility of the gospel and the Word of God. Jesus calling to Paul does not change anything. Paul is the instrument to propagate the Good News to the Jews and Gentiles. We cannot change anything if that is God's plan to bring people to His kingdom. In application, God may choose anyone who He will be used. And I believed that this has transpired and recorded in the history of Christianity.

Thanks
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
I don't know if it is wrong or more so a bit of vanity for Paul to say that people are saved through himself. Regardless Christ had his warning, what a coincidence someone would do just that, Paul calling himself a spiritual father, and people would ignore the warning.


Paul never said people are saved through himself. How do you come by that
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Paul was the first antichrist, Donald Trump is the most recent IMHO
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Jesus was a liberal, the Pharisees were the conservatives.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Paul never said people are saved through himself. How do you come by that
In the verses already mentioned, Paul calls himself a spiritual father, even before Christ.
KJV
""For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.""
NIV
""Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.""
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
That's amazing, but then coming from a liberal, what can anyone except.

Everything Jesus stood against, liberals are found in Supporting those things.

Yeah, liberals support treating the sick, feeding the hungry, and helping the poor, what do conservatives say???
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
In the verses already mentioned, Paul calls himself a spiritual father, even before Christ.
KJV
""For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.""
NIV
""Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.""

Had you any idea or clue what Paul is talking about, but since you don't.

What Paul is talking about in
1st Cor 4:14-15, is a Spiritual rebirth,
Like being born again.

So in 1st Cor 4:15--"For though you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel"

Notice the word ( begotten ) In the Greek translation of the Strong's Concordance 1080, This means Paul has ( regenerated )
( delivered ) ( Procreated ) them through the gospel of Christ Jesus. Meaning a spiritual rebirth, being born again through the gospel of Christ Jesus, by the Spirit of the word of God.

Even Peter wrote about being born again by the Spirit of the word of God,
In 1 Peter 1:22-23--"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever"

Therefore Paul through the gospel of Christ Jesus people were having a Spiritual rebirth through the gospel of Christ Jesus, Being born again by the Spirit of the word of God.

Therefore before you Quote someone or something, you should get to the root of a word to see what is actually being said and done.
 
Last edited:
Top