Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2012, 12:18 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
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.

There's most of it. Lose the WebKit. N00b.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 01:28 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(14-12-2012 12:18 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  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.

There's most of it. Lose the WebKit. N00b.
Thanks HOC. There are no paragraphs....but there it is. Don't know what a Webkit or a noob is.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 11:23 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:I think this topic is approaching a natural conclusion.

I'll give my conclusions about Paul...

Agreed, and I will also offer my conclusions about Paul.


Paul was a Pharisee from Tarsus, influenced by the Greek culture that existed in Tarsus. He was commissioned by the Sanhedrin
to persecute the followers of Jesus immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus.

Paul claimed to have converted to the philosophy of the Nazarene at some point within the first year or so following the crucifixion. This was likely done out of guilt of persecuting and killing his countrymen, and also from being subjected to the possibility that he could indeed have been persecuting those who followed the actual Messiah of the Jews.

Paul was rejected as an apostle by the Church of Jerusalem, run by Jesus' half brother, James. The reasons for this were simple; Paul was simply not to be trusted, and had not earned the right to be an apostle. He was also extremely vain and boisterous and an undesirable loud-mouth to have around.

After the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49, Paul began to feel ostracized by the church of Jerusalem because of his aggressive nature in purporting to be someone he wasn't; an apostle.

He then began to make claims that he was receiving revelations from Jesus regarding the doctrine of Jesus, which bore little resemblance to what was actually being taught by the Nazarenes. He claimed that Jesus himself made Paul an Apostle, and Paul makes damn sure everybody knows he's an "apostle" by asserting it numerous times in his letters.

Paul then takes his new found "Christian" religion to the Gentiles, which was loosely based upon the historical Yeshua. He found himself competing with other early Christian sects who were preaching a different gospel than the one he was preaching. He creates long winded letters asserting his apostleship and expressing his so-called "revelations" to whomever would listen.

Paul actually believed and knew that Jesus existed and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It makes absolutely no sense that a god who did not physically exist would somehow get crucified by Pilate, as stated numerous times by Paul himself. It makes absolutely no sense that, as Paul himself stated, other sects competing with his own were also preaching about a man named Jesus if this same Jesus did not exist. It makes no sense that Josephus would mention Jesus Christ as being the brother of James if this same Jesus did not exist.

There are just too many mentions of this Jesus from various sources with the same identical characteristics for it to not be relative to the same person. Occam's Razor applies extremely well here, as well as the evidence, logic, and reasoning to support this argument.

In conclusion, the evidence indicates that Paul is loosely basing his religious ideology upon the historical Yeshua.

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
14-12-2012, 07:48 PM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2012 08:14 PM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:Don't know what a Webkit or a noob is.


A Webkit is THIS

A "noob" is internet slang for "newbie" which is internet slang for "new person who as of yet has no clue" in regards to one matter or other.

I believe he is referring to you and the way you post, which more often than not is quite confusing because it often appears to be one long run-on sentence with no paragraphs. Hence, the reason he posted your position with no paragraphs. Considering the history of his demeanor here, his remarks should not be taken as an insult, but instead as a "friendly jab" designed to make you more aware, and less a "noob."

You may be using a web browser such as Safari or some other webkit technology that renders your posts so ... aesthetically displeasing?

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
15-12-2012, 03:43 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(14-12-2012 11:23 AM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:I think this topic is approaching a natural conclusion.

I'll give my conclusions about Paul...

Agreed, and I will also offer my conclusions about Paul.


Paul was a Pharisee from Tarsus, influenced by the Greek culture that existed in Tarsus. He was commissioned by the Sanhedrin
to persecute the followers of Jesus immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus.

Paul claimed to have converted to the philosophy of the Nazarene at some point within the first year or so following the crucifixion. This was likely done out of guilt of persecuting and killing his countrymen, and also from being subjected to the possibility that he could indeed have been persecuting those who followed the actual Messiah of the Jews.

Paul was rejected as an apostle by the Church of Jerusalem, run by Jesus' half brother, James. The reasons for this were simple; Paul was simply not to be trusted, and had not earned the right to be an apostle. He was also extremely vain and boisterous and an undesirable loud-mouth to have around.

After the Council of Jerusalem in AD 49, Paul began to feel ostracized by the church of Jerusalem because of his aggressive nature in purporting to be someone he wasn't; an apostle.

He then began to make claims that he was receiving revelations from Jesus regarding the doctrine of Jesus, which bore little resemblance to what was actually being taught by the Nazarenes. He claimed that Jesus himself made Paul an Apostle, and Paul makes damn sure everybody knows he's an "apostle" by asserting it numerous times in his letters.

Paul then takes his new found "Christian" religion to the Gentiles, which was loosely based upon the historical Yeshua. He found himself competing with other early Christian sects who were preaching a different gospel than the one he was preaching. He creates long winded letters asserting his apostleship and expressing his so-called "revelations" to whomever would listen.

Paul actually believed and knew that Jesus existed and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It makes absolutely no sense that a god who did not physically exist would somehow get crucified by Pilate, as stated numerous times by Paul himself. It makes absolutely no sense that, as Paul himself stated, other sects competing with his own were also preaching about a man named Jesus if this same Jesus did not exist. It makes no sense that Josephus would mention Jesus Christ as being the brother of James if this same Jesus did not exist.

There are just too many mentions of this Jesus from various sources with the same identical characteristics for it to not be relative to the same person. Occam's Razor applies extremely well here, as well as the evidence, logic, and reasoning to support this argument.

In conclusion, the evidence indicates that Paul is loosely basing his religious ideology upon the historical Yeshua.
Hey Free, can you tell me where Paul mentions Pilate please? (I'm not disagreeing with you, I just can't find it)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2012, 05:15 AM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2012 08:53 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
My summary :
I think in light of Paul's obnoxious personality, and his continued need to stick his nose in things, he likely "commissioned" himself. Clearly he had some sort of ego problem. I still think, in light of his "Romanized" name meaning 'small" he probably had a Napoleon complex. I also think it's very likely were was more than one Paul. The Paul of the first part of Acts contradicts radically in his letters, things that are said about him in Acts, (where he went and when), or else they just
made it up, OR, someone got one of the versions all mixed up, as even Acts contradicts whether he was known by sight to the Jerusalem church, (which he would have to have been if he participated in the stoning of Stephen, and been as active as it says he was).

But I think Free's analysis that the "conversion" was more than likely a long "process" (maybe he stayed somewhere on that road), is brilliant. He never fell off a horse, (that is later only in art), and people just usually don't change their stripes over night. I suppose some do, in a religious context, but he was far too legalistic a Jew, (and in many ways remained so, when it was convenient), just to change all at once. I think, consciously, or unconsciously, he saw a way to make himself be
as important as he clearly wanted/needed to be. He was a Roman citizen, which he made sure people knew, but as the son of a freed slave, he was near the bottom of the Roman social structure, and he hated that.

Clearly he thought he had to bribe the Jerusalem church to get back/be accepted into their good graces, with the gifts of cash he had collected.

Clearly he got the stuff he added to Christianity from the Greek mystery cults which he knew from Tarsus, (a hotbed of Mithraism/Zoroastrianism), which
became the "salvation" paradigm, (which Jesus NEVER talked about), and which makes no sense in the Hebrew context. (Ritual purification was not "personal/spiritual" purification). These he added to attract adherents to his new cult, as it was popular in the places he was setting up his local communities in the Hellenic world.

Paul also believed only in resurrection for the saved, and believed in some sense they already were "resurrected", as they awaited the immanent end
times, (which never happened). Therefore the business of "hell" as it's preached by Christians today would have made no sense to Paul.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Political skeptic .. if there is a bad reason something bad might have happened, you can bet your ass, that's why it happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-12-2012, 07:29 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(18-10-2012 07:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They could have had "good" motives for the deceptions.


Yeah, just like the Nazis had "good" motives for the deceptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Janus's post
16-12-2012, 04:31 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(15-12-2012 07:29 PM)Janus Wrote:  
(18-10-2012 07:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They could have had "good" motives for the deceptions.



Yeah, just like the Nazis had "good" motives for the deceptions.



If we're discussing evil, the Nazi's were minnows compared to the Vatican
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  LIES THAT PAUL MADE truthBtold 77 1,597 20-01-2014 12:32 AM
Last Post: EvolutionKills
  DID PAUL CHANGE SCRIPTURE? truthBtold 13 392 15-01-2014 12:01 PM
Last Post: truthBtold
  Westboro Baptist Church to picket Paul Walker's funeral Raptor Jesus 35 1,109 06-12-2013 02:25 AM
Last Post: morondog
  Does this Bible verse imply Paul of Tarsus wanted to outlaw atheism? Chase 10 503 11-10-2013 05:54 PM
Last Post: Mark Fulton
  What's a saint? Dark Light 10 329 02-09-2013 12:51 PM
Last Post: Minimalist
  Pray for us Saint Gilbert Abdul Alhazred 3 328 12-08-2013 05:45 AM
Last Post: Bucky Ball
Lightbulb Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach - Good Sense fstratzero 0 285 15-12-2012 07:20 PM
Last Post: fstratzero
Forum Jump: