Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2012, 11:02 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 01:08 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
"As far as "Isn't it more probable his Christ wasn't Jesus," is concerned, for the most part this is true."

HURRAH! TRUMPET BLASTS PLEASE!

"But there's far too many similarities between what Paul asserts regarding Jesus, and the common claims from all other sources regarding Jesus, to not come to a reasonable and logical conclusion that the Jesus whom Paul spoke about was modeled after the historical Yeshua."

OOPS! I THOUGHT IT WAS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE! LOL

"After all, why would Paul pick a Jesus who:

1. Was a man?" I DOUBT HE DID. PAUL, OR SOMEONE WRITING IN HIS NAME, DID WRITE

“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh”(Rom. 1:3–4, KJV)—which is inconsistent with his claim that Jesus was the son of God, because it’s impossible to have two fathers. Paul was frequently inconsistent.

Elsewhere it is obvious his Christ was a spirit, not a man.

"2. Confessed before Pontius Pilate?"

Did Paul write J did this? You may be right...please provide a reference.


3. "Was crucified?"

Ah....you weren't a son of god if you weren't crucified. Nothing new there.

"Paul had to base his Jesus upon something and not absolutely nothing."

No he didn't! He was Paul! He was the guy who'd been chosen especially to receive revelations!

Benny Hinn gets revelations too! It's easy! You just claim "Ive had a revelation!"

I don't think you realise how easy it is to start a cult!

"It makes no sense to me that he could get so many people to buy into his bullshit unless there was some semblance of truth to his claims."

= I think it's true because a lot of other people believe too (argumentum ad numerum)

Here's a fact. Paul was a two-bit player in his own day. He was a legend only in his own lunchbox. He pissed people off nearly everywhere he went. It was only in the mid second century that his writings had any significant impact and were then married to the gospels to create a dogma suitable for mass consumption. In the late 4th century people bought into his bullshit mainly because they'd be killed if they didn't.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 12:54 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-12-2012 08:52 PM)Free Wrote:  
(05-12-2012 08:20 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You just don't get it. I'll try again. I know you're not stupid, so just read this slowly...real slowly....

Yeshua is the real, flesh and blood person who probably existed.

"Jesus" is a fiction, a story, a miracle working son of god who rose from the dead. "He" was created when the gospels were written. It's just possible some of the more "down to earth" facts about Yeshua are incorporated in the gospels (ie in the Jesus) story.

Paul must have known of a Yeshua, but didn't write about him.

Paul knew nothing of "Jesus"...because Paul wrote before the gospels were written, and includes almost none of the Jesus story in his writing.

Paul's mythical son of God, the Christ, wasn't Yeshua and wasn't Jesus. Paul was writing about a spiritual intermediary between man and god (Yahweh). There were many similar miracle working, crucified sons of God in other cults in the empire. Paul was creating his own. I think it was only in the second century that Paul's mythical Christ was merged into the gospel stories.

So yes...there are 3 "Jesus's"....one is real ( Yeshua), the other 2 are the gospel's "Jesus" and Paul's "Christ."

This is what numerous historians, including the narrator in the video (although he thinks there probably wasn't a Yeshua) believe.

This is the 5th or 6th time I've talked about this. If you don't understand the argument I'm going to have to hand you over to someone else, as there are a lot of people reading these blogs, and I don't want them getting bored with my repitition.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that I got it the first time ... 25 years ago ... long before you ever considered getting interested in it.

What you have been doing is obfuscating this discussion to avoid dealing with the evidence and attempting to make people think I don't understand an argument that is older than dirt.

So stop repeating yourself, and get on with dealing with the evidence. How the fuck you can arrive at a conclusion that i don't understand the argument after 25 pages of discussion is astounding.

You have been saying ad nausium that Paul's Jesus is not Yeshua. How fucking hard is that to understand? We all get it, we have always gotten it, you have made it abundantly fucking clear.

Seriously? Start debating the evidence and drop the pretense that you argument is not understood.



Good idea. Let's stick to the evidence and cut down the emotion. We're not arguing over sheep stations. I'm surprised chas hasn't told us to pull our heads in.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 02:49 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
You wrote

"How the fuck you can arrive at a conclusion that i don't understand the argument after 25 pages of discussion is astounding."

Well, friend, when you wrote
"So since you have agreed that Paul would have picked up on thousands of
clues regarding Yeshua/Jesus from the Nazarenes, then you must agree
that Paul absolutely believed that Yeshua/Jesus existed,"

you clearly haven't understood what I've been saying. I was referring to the fact that Paul must have known of a Yeshua the Nazarene (assuming he existed). Yet that does not mean the character he (probably) calls Jesus or (definitely) calls "Christ" had any relation to this Yeshua the Nazarene, which is what you were implying. I therefore have good reason to believe you haven't understood my argument.

Then, in post 413, you made the same point again, thereby demonstrating you still didn't understand.

You then ask
"Are you trying to say we are speaking of 3 different Jesus' here? The Gospel Jesus, Paul's Jesus, and the Yeshua/Jesus?"

which is exactly what I've been saying all along. This gives me some hope that at long last the penny has almost dropped, so I very gently explained it all again, which, judging by all your swearing, you obviously didn't like.

I walk a fine line between trying to explain something to you and not pissing you off because it disagrees with what you've believed for the last 25 years.

And I'm not even asking you to necessarily agree with me, but just that you at least understand my argument.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 07:54 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 11:04 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:"Gal_1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

"of Jesus Christ" is not the same as "from Jesus Christ."


Actually, yes it is. Check the Greek link I gave you. The Greek word actually means "through." The word "of" is middle English, and at the time the KJV was written, it referred to "by."

Therefore it is to be understood as "but by the revelation of/through/by Jesus Christ.'

Quote:"Rom_14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

I'm not sure which bible you are quoting here. Here are 2 other bible versions of this

1. "14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean." (RSV)
2." I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself."

"in the Lord jesus" suggests a story about, not from, Jesus. Which translation is correct? I dunno.
(NIV)


Again, middle English. Again, check the Greek. Check Thesaurus. "in" = "by."

Admittedly, this translation thing is tough enough, and very tough for a layman. A common mistake is to not understand how the English language has changed over the centuries, and how some common words at one time had what is now considered to be obsolete definitions.

Another thing is that most modern translations actually use the older translations such as the KJV for part of their scholarship and do not always realize the obsolete definitions. The English language is only about 800 years old, and has dramatically changed since the KJV was written.

If there's ever anything of value that I could teach you, then what I am saying about the English language is the most important thing to understand when it comes to translations.

Again, check the Greek and check the obsolete English (middle English).


Quote:"Gal_1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" Not convincing either. God the dad plays a role here. He sent his son, the Christ, hence "but by Jesus Christ"


This rebuttal of yours simply sux and is inadequate. The text quite clearly says Paul became an apostle by Jesus Christ. Sure, God the Father is included, but just because he's included does not eliminate Jesus Christ. Fallacy of Special Pleading is employed by you here.

End of argument.

Quote:"1Ti_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;" NOT written by Paul...you should know this!


See reserved concession at the end.

Quote:"Rom_15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed," I accept that here he is suggesting his Christ (who he doesn't call Jesus)was achieving things through him. Chalk up 1/2 a point to you. However...let's not forget that Christians have messed with all of these texts.



Let's not forget you are providing no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claim that anybody ever tampered with this particular text. Until you provide evidence, this text remains 100% undisputed. You are guilty of Special Pleading here.

Quote:"1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."As above. Give yourself another 1/2 point, but note he's not referring to Jesus.


Since he equates ad nausium that Jesus is the Christ all through his texts, and again no evidence provided to substantiate that this particular text has been tampered with, it remains undisputed. You are guilty again of Special Pleading .

Quote:"1Co_9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?" INTERPOLATION...as discussed in the video.


No evidence whatsoever has been provided to support interpolation by the video, you, or anyone else. Not ever. This text remains undisputed.

Quote:"1Ti_2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men is the man Christ Jesus;" Come on...you know Paul didn't write this epistle.


And you think I rely on too much consensus? What are you doing it for then? Although there is wide agreement that 1Tim and 2Tim may not have been written by Paul, not one scholar will ever state it as fact. They simply do not know for sure. Iraeneus quotes these letters and Polycarp also appears to quote them.

Quote:"Each one specifies a communication between Paul and Jesus." No they don't. Ro 15;8 and 1 Cor 1;17 go closest to supporting your theory that "Christ" instructed Paul, but they don't mention "Jesus."


You have not succeeded in properly evaluating the evidence using factual scholarship, logic, or reasoning. You attempt to dismiss by exhorting interpolations as if asserting it will somehow make it true. Accusations without evidence are dead in the water, and not acceptable. No one can stop you from saying what you want to say, but people can most certainly point out the glaringly obvious flaws in your assessment, reasoning and logic, and point out the logical fallacies as I have done above.

Quote:"Paul claims that Jesus gave him revelations," NO HE DOESN"T...NOT ONCE! "persuaded Paul, called Paul to be an Apostle," WRONG, IT WAS CHRIST, NOT JESUS, WHO ALLEGEDLY TALKED HIM IN TO BEING AN APOSTLE "and sent Paul to preach the Gospel." WRONG, IT WAS CHRIST, NOT JESUS,


You are guilty here of ignoring the evidence which clearly demonstrates ad nausium that Paul regards JESUS as the Christ, and names nobody else. The fallacy you are committing is known as Cherry Picking .

Quote:Also, Paul claims to have actually seen Jesus,INTERPOLATION!, AND IF HE DID "SEE" JESUS, WHY DIDN"T HE DESCRIBE HIM?


No evidence supplied to support interpolation. Also guilty of an unsupported Argument from Ignorance .

Quote:"regards Jesus Christ as a man," BUT YOUR QUOTES DEMONSTRATE THAT HE THOUGHT CHRIST WAS A SPIRIT!!!!


Paul believed that Jesus the man died, was resurrected, and the spirit of Jesus Christ was with god. The following verse demonstrates this:

Col_3:1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God

Since the above verses demonstrates that Christ was "raised" it requires limited reasoning to determine that Paul is talking about Jesus who was raised from the dead. If you even attempt to make it look like Paul is talking about 2 different personages again, making yet a 4th Jesus of Gospels/Jesus of Paul/Yeshua of the Nazarenes/Spirit of Christ in the argument, then you have simply gone over the edge and cannot be taken seriously.

Your argument is quickly sinking into the abyss of lunacy.


Quote:"Thus, according to the textual evidence, and with the use of Occam's Razor, we can reasonably and logically conclude that Paul believed and/or claimed that he indeed had direct communication with Jesus Christ." NO WE CAN"T. YOU ARE GUESSING. YOUR PRESUMTIONS ARE CLOUDING YOUR JUDGEMENT.

Nothing is clouding my judgement. I analyzed the texts, used scholarship, and went the hard yards. You have not done the job at all.

Quote:You still haven't addressed the fact Paul says almost nothing about the specifics of Jesus' life, such as his mother (the mother of god!), his miracles, his home town etc etc.

You continue to bring this up as if I haven't addressed it. A simple review of my posts indicates it has been addressed ad nausium. Also, where are you getting this info about his mother, miracles, home town etc? It appears you are trying to use the gospels as some kind of evidence that Paul didn't quote anything about those things, when we both know the Gospels were written after Paul's letters.

That's a common mistake made by those who are proponents of the Jesus/Christ Myth Theory, and demonstrates yet further lack of logic and reasoning on your part.

Quote:Also, why would Paul fight with the brother and disciples (James, Peter and John) of the son of god? Surely even he wasn't that arrogant!

The evidence of contention is demonstrated in the letters, and since you like to use Acts, so can I, and Acts demonstrates Paul's contention with Peter and Barnabas.

Quote:Take your blinkers off!

My eyes are wide open and can see all 6 sides to the cube. You are viewing things with the obvious view of an amateur lacking scholarship, critical thought, reasoning, and logical training.

I can concede the assertions regarding 1st and 2nd Tim with reservations, however be it known that despite the scholarly consensus, the evidence of Pauline authorship still exists.

This is getting tediously boring.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2012, 11:08 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 11:44 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(06-12-2012 02:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You wrote

"How the fuck you can arrive at a conclusion that i don't understand the argument after 25 pages of discussion is astounding."

Well, friend, when you wrote
"So since you have agreed that Paul would have picked up on thousands of
clues regarding Yeshua/Jesus from the Nazarenes, then you must agree
that Paul absolutely believed that Yeshua/Jesus existed,"

you clearly haven't understood what I've been saying. I was referring to the fact that Paul must have known of a Yeshua the Nazarene (assuming he existed). Yet that does not mean the character he (probably) calls Jesus or (definitely) calls "Christ" had any relation to this Yeshua the Nazarene, which is what you were implying. I therefore have good reason to believe you haven't understood my argument.

Then, in post 413, you made the same point again, thereby demonstrating you still didn't understand.

You then ask
"Are you trying to say we are speaking of 3 different Jesus' here? The Gospel Jesus, Paul's Jesus, and the Yeshua/Jesus?"

which is exactly what I've been saying all along. This gives me some hope that at long last the penny has almost dropped, so I very gently explained it all again, which, judging by all your swearing, you obviously didn't like.

I walk a fine line between trying to explain something to you and not pissing you off because it disagrees with what you've believed for the last 25 years.

And I'm not even asking you to necessarily agree with me, but just that you at least understand my argument.
Then it may serve you well to make a better distinction between all these different Jesus' you keep harping about, since it is commonly known and understood by the majority of scholars and myself that there was only 1 who fits the criteria, and who was also considered to be Yeshua of the Nazarene, Paul's Jesus, and Jesus of the Gospels.

I do understand your argument, but you may not understand that when you speak of Jesus, Christ, Yeshua etc, to me (and most people) you are only speaking about 1 person, so making a better distinction would help to get your points across.

All 3 are considered to be "Yeshua" from my end.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2012, 02:43 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Interesting movie is out, may be available soon on the topic.
http://apolitebribe.com/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-12-2012, 01:59 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
I'm only on page 7 of this (been trying to read for days but can only do small bits), but you guys are awesome! I love all the anecdotes, some stuff makes me laugh and other stuff makes me sooo mad. Interesting!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LadyJane's post
13-12-2012, 11:35 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
I think this topic is approaching a natural conclusion.

I'll give my conclusions about Paul...
Summary of Paul“That Saint Paul…He’s the one who makes all the trouble.”(Ernest Hemingway, http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hemingwa.htm)I’ll admit the obvious. I feel little warmth for him, nor do I like his message, which has made it hard for me to be objective. He had an incessant self-righteous manner. His ideas were irritatingly convoluted and his ethics depraved. He deliberately distorted the Nazarenes’ beliefs with his own. He was a man intent on manipulating people and shoring up his own status, and all this is very unattractive.It’s easy to be critical of characters if we don’t understand their world from their perspective, so I tried to do so. I spent many months reading his letters, and books and articles, expecting to find some redeeming features, but there are few to be found. To put Paul’s Christology in perspective, we should consider his complete lack of credentials. His legitimacy rested solely on his claim that God had revealed everything to him, an extremely weak argument. Christian history is littered with charismatic cult leaders who have thought or pretended that God talked to them. They’ve usually spent their youth studying scripture, started their own sect, and then tried to control everyone in it, which is precisely what Paul attempted. It turned out he started a rather large sect. Paul’s “good news” defines today’s Christianity, yet it was contrived to be attractive and easy to sell. He claimed Christ was the Son of God crucified by the Jews as a sacrifice to make up for humanity’s sins, and it was imperative to have faith in this to get into heaven. These innovative ideas were unknown to John the Baptist and Yeshua, and repugnant to James, Peter, the other disciples, and the entire Jewish nation. Paul met James and Peter, but thought they had “nothing to add to the good news I preach.” They were messianic Jews who Paul knew opposed Roman rule, so he berated their beliefs and promoted his own. The Nazarenes eventually managed to neutralize him.He was cunning, opportunistic, and manipulative, and cleverly tailored all his innovative arguments to suit whichever community he was writing to. He invented long-winded waffling tales about his own credibility, God, heaven, Christ, Jews, and gentiles, and they don’t make sense. Paul knew nothing of a Jesus born to a virgin, the preacher who could cater for a crowd with a few loaves and fishes, command graves to open, cast out devils, walk on water, or cure leprosy. He never met Yeshua, or described him. Paul teaches us more about Yeshua by what he doesn’t say than what he does. He indirectly proved that the Gospels are mainly mythical. My theory is that Paul’s Christ figure was someone else who has since been retrofitted into the gospel stories, probably sometime in the second century. This “cut and paste job” is obvious once one has been made aware of it. Nearly all Christians aren’t, but that isn’t their fault. They’ve been lied to.There was no such thing as a New Testament in Paul’s time, so he couldn’t possibly have presumed his own writings were scripture.He was overtly misogynistic, homophobic, and had a neurotic loathing of sexuality. He thought he was an authority on the afterlife, work place relations, the status of women, what to wear, when to eat, when to have sex, whom to keep company with, the role of government…and the list goes on. Today’s preachers promote these pathetic prejudices to justify their own.Paul was a product of the gentile world, and was probably a government propagandist employed to undermine and report on problematic Jews. He took his job very seriously. He became so obsessed with promoting propaganda he probably started to believe his own spiel. His job gave him power, prestige, and a platform to preach his bigoted ethics, and that was attractive to a man who was a social misfit. If he’d lived in modern times, he’d be given a gold watch for his time in the public service, put on a pension, ushered out the door, and the whole office would be glad to see his back.His writings became important when they were promoted by some second century Christians. They had to jettison the archaic Judaic law to be popular with gentiles, and Paul’s ideas justified just that. This was why the author of the book of Acts (discussed next) invented stories about him to bolster his legitimacy. This imaginative raconteur became the most influential theologian of all. Christianity became Paul’s baby, although dad didn’t know what a monster his progeny would grow in to. I think his letters just happened to grab the imagination of the market, a most unfortunate quirk of history. His awful prejudices will continue to poison people if they aren’t recognized for what they are. References:Acharya S “The Christ Conspiracy”Cupitt, D. 1979 “The Debate About Christ”. SCM Press Limited. LondonMurphy-O’Connor, J. 1996 “Paul A Critical Life”. Oxford University Press. Oxford.Schonfield, H. 1977 “The Passover Plot”. Futura Publications. LondonSchonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.Stourton, E. 1994 “Paul Of Tarsus”. Hodder and Stoughton. London.Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/08/30/series-1–paul-and-his-communities-podcast-collection/http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htmhttp://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htmhttp://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htmhttp://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htmhttp://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd_man_out_acts15.htmhttp://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDuxBPcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Jesus+words+only&hl=en&ei=M0pQTZelKo2CsQPB-fSRCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRPhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9ex4&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZzka7wwH60http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IcVyvg2Qlo
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2012, 11:59 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
I can't edit previous post....I'll try again...

Summary of Paul
“That Saint Paul…He’s the one who makes all the trouble.”(Ernest Hemingway, http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/hemingwa.htm)I’ll admit the obvious. I feel little warmth for him, nor do I like his message, which has made it hard for me to be objective. He had an incessant self-righteous manner. His ideas were irritatingly convoluted and his ethics depraved. He deliberately distorted the Nazarenes’ beliefs with his own. He was a man intent on manipulating people and shoring up his own status, and all this is very unattractive.It’s easy to be critical of characters if we don’t understand their world from their perspective, so I tried to do so. I spent many months reading his letters, and books and articles, expecting to find some redeeming features, but there are few to be found. To put Paul’s Christology in perspective, we should consider his complete lack of credentials. His legitimacy rested solely on his claim that God had revealed everything to him, an extremely weak argument. Christian history is littered with charismatic cult leaders who have thought or pretended that God talked to them. They’ve usually spent their youth studying scripture, started their own sect, and then tried to control everyone in it, which is precisely what Paul attempted. It turned out he started a rather large sect. Paul’s “good news” defines today’s Christianity, yet it was contrived to be attractive and easy to sell. He claimed Christ was the Son of God crucified by the Jews as a sacrifice to make up for humanity’s sins, and it was imperative to have faith in this to get into heaven. These innovative ideas were unknown to John the Baptist and Yeshua, and repugnant to James, Peter, the other disciples, and the entire Jewish nation. Paul met James and Peter, but thought they had “nothing to add to the good news I preach.” They were messianic Jews who Paul knew opposed Roman rule, so he berated their beliefs and promoted his own. The Nazarenes eventually managed to neutralize him.He was cunning, opportunistic, and manipulative, and cleverly tailored all his innovative arguments to suit whichever community he was writing to. He invented long-winded waffling tales about his own credibility, God, heaven, Christ, Jews, and gentiles, and they don’t make sense. Paul knew nothing of a Jesus born to a virgin, the preacher who could cater for a crowd with a few loaves and fishes, command graves to open, cast out devils, walk on water, or cure leprosy. He never met Yeshua, or described him. Paul teaches us more about Yeshua by what he doesn’t say than what he does. He indirectly proved that the Gospels are mainly mythical. My theory is that Paul’s Christ figure was someone else who has since been retrofitted into the gospel stories, probably sometime in the second century. This “cut and paste job” is obvious once one has been made aware of it. Nearly all Christians aren’t, but that isn’t their fault. They’ve been lied to.There was no such thing as a New Testament in Paul’s time, so he couldn’t possibly have presumed his own writings were scripture.He was overtly misogynistic, homophobic, and had a neurotic loathing of sexuality. He thought he was an authority on the afterlife, work place relations, the status of women, what to wear, when to eat, when to have sex, whom to keep company with, the role of government…and the list goes on. Today’s preachers promote these pathetic prejudices to justify their own.Paul was a product of the gentile world, and was probably a government propagandist employed to undermine and report on problematic Jews. He took his job very seriously. He became so obsessed with promoting propaganda he probably started to believe his own spiel. His job gave him power, prestige, and a platform to preach his bigoted ethics, and that was attractive to a man who was a social misfit. If he’d lived in modern times, he’d be given a gold watch for his time in the public service, put on a pension, ushered out the door, and the whole office would be glad to see his back.His writings became important when they were promoted by some second century Christians. They had to jettison the archaic Judaic law to be popular with gentiles, and Paul’s ideas justified just that. This was why the author of the book of Acts (discussed next) invented stories about him to bolster his legitimacy. This imaginative raconteur became the most influential theologian of all. Christianity became Paul’s baby, although dad didn’t know what a monster his progeny would grow in to. I think his letters just happened to grab the imagination of the market, a most unfortunate quirk of history. His awful prejudices will continue to poison people if they aren’t recognized for what they are. References:Acharya S “The Christ Conspiracy”Cupitt, D. 1979 “The Debate About Christ”. SCM Press Limited. LondonMurphy-O’Connor, J. 1996 “Paul A Critical Life”. Oxford University Press. Oxford.Schonfield, H. 1977 “The Passover Plot”. Futura Publications. LondonSchonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.Stourton, E. 1994 “Paul Of Tarsus”. Hodder and Stoughton. London.Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/08/30/series-1–paul-and-his-communities-podcast-collection/http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htmhttp://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htmhttp://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htmhttp://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htmhttp://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd_man_out_acts15.htmhttp://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDuxBPcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Jesus+words+only&hl=en&ei=M0pQTZelKo2CsQPB-fSRCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRPhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9ex4&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZzka7wwH60http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IcVyvg2Qlo
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 12:00 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
SHIT!

Can anyone fix this?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: