Did Paul champion the Cause of Christ or corrupt it?

[Dawnofhope]

'Speaking for Jesus', or best surmization. I believe there is a good chance that Paul is either speaking for Jesus, or speaking for the religion. In other words, Jesus practiced a religion, Himself, and, that would have been compared, at the time, the texts were written. Not so much now, very subjective how certain ideas are understood. Ironically, one would expect it to be the other way around, but, I believe, it isn't, the religion has been obfuscated, in my opinion.

For what its worth, I agree.

 

[OtherSheep]

I had always believed Paul was one of the most important and influential apostles. This was my belief as a Christian and then when I converted to the Baha'i Faith. I'd always maintained that the New Testament provides an authoritative and authentic testimony to the life and Teachings of Lord Jesus. Both Peter and Paul are regarded highly in Baha'i theology. Jesus asked Peter to lead His church and Peter clearly affirmed the authority of Paul in one of his letters (2 Peter 3:13-18).

I always unquestioningly assumed Paul's apostle to be affirmed by the Holy Spirit until I came across an internet discussion group called religious forum. Paul was clearly the focus of criticism from Muslims, Jews, ex-Christians, atheists and some who had developed their own unique theology. It seems those who would criticise Christianity see Paul as being a weakness and easy target. It has even been claimed Paul corrupted the gospel of Christ.

To be clear Baha'is are not Christians and although we share many Christian beliefs we have some important differences. Christians believe in the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, a literally resurrected Jesus, and Jesus being physically God incarnate. Baha'is recognise Muhammad, Buddha and Krishna as being Manifstations of God along with Jesus and Moses. God manifests or reveals Himself through these Great Educators spiritually and not physically. We see the resurrection of Jesus as being of fundamental importance but of a spiritual nature. However we do not reject Paul as an Apostle of Christ.

So what are the arguments for and against Paul? Did he really change the message of Christ? Didn't God/Jesus give the apostles the authority to speak on His behalf?

[we only have his word for it that he ever saw an angel of light... but nobody calls him apostle but himself... he fits every definition of a man coming in his own name, and fulfills that prophecy, too]

Paul is the reason for the division in christianity.

In Matthew 28, Jesus told His 11 to teach the nations what Jesus had taught.

Paul comes along, creates an entirely new guy wearing the name of Jesus, and teaches against what Jesus had taught... calling this teaching his gospel, by which you must believe to be saved. He says that all you have to do is believe in your heart (whatever that may mean for any individual) and confess with your mouth (whatever it means to you) the Lord Jesus... and abracadbra, you're in and can never be kicked out no matter what you do... the whole predestined, imputed righteousness malarky is smoke and mirrors... lies and illusions. If you've ever 'been there done that', you'd know what I mean.

Which is the exact opposite of what Jesus told the Jews who said they believed Him, (while seeking to kill Him) because Jesus says you must 'continue with' Him to be His disciple. And since Jesus tells us that if we love Him we will keep His commandments, we know precisely what "continue with Him" means. And since Jesus' commandments quote the Oldest Testament, we know from the get-go that the Law isn't rolled up before the New Heaven appears... just as Jesus says. People who don't see that Jesus takes First Law and expands it so that it judges the heart, haven't yet seen that the Law written on our hearts is the Sermon on the Mount &c.

Paul's version is the seed planted in shallow soil. But the real meaning behind "believe" the way Jesus uses the word, is a continuous belief in what Jesus says, which affects the actions. "Believe" a man who told you to buy a Ford, while actually buying a Chevy... well, that just won't cut it.
And Jesus tells us that the enemy even plants bad seed. In fact, nearly every one of the parables are prophecies... and Paul fulfills most of them to the letter. What he doesn't fulfill, his "twice the children of hell" proselytes will fulfill.

As we've already seen, to be a fulfilled prophecy, the whole thing must come to pass. Which means the same thing to Paul that it meant to Judas: once a person fulfills a prophecy, the entire prophecy must be let to run its course, or it's not a true prophecy. (Jonah was given a prophecy regarding the ruin of Nineveh. They changed their minds which changed their actions, and avoided the outcome of the prophecy... which is a horse of a different color.) Paul never changed his mind... nor could he have. If you kill someone, you cannot go to that person and ask for forgiveness. (Judas repented; but because his action caused more than he had anticipated, he repented. And it was still not enough to save him, since the action of becoming a traitor could not be changed because it was prophesied of him.) Paul's victims were even made to blaspheme by means of torture... take a deep breath and think about that for a minute... Jesus says that offences must come, but woe to the man who brings them.

In fact, straight up, Paul's entire "ministry" could be said to have been done in order for him to
(1) continue making the followers of Christ blaspheme the Father by naming the Law flawed and obsolete, (2) to absolve himself of the scourgings and murders he committed, and (3) to try to make Jesus' prophecies which Paul himself fulfilled into failed prophecies. Do I need to explain what that means? and what that says about Paul?

But the point is that if you believe Paul, you must disbelieve most of what Jesus says and all of His prophecies... or you must twist what Jesus said to accomodate Paul... hardly ever is it done the other way around. Some even go so far as to say that Jesus was set aside for the Kingdom Age... which would mean that Jesus words have in fact passed away... during this supposed parenthetical grace age when "do as thou wilt is the whole law." The prophets warn those in the isles who live carelessly... which is what the Pauline law of expediency means when taken to its logical conclusion.

You are correct in that Paul is the reason why people look at what is called "christianity" the way that they do. Many atheists say that they like the man Jesus, but... Meaning, they think that because the so called church has accepted the wolf Benjamin, that the followers of Jesus are all flakes... and something worse. [A word about so-called Gnosticism. If I understand the meaning, it's letting the words mean what the dictionary says they meant when the words were written... rather than some "as you like it" meaning... which is what Paulianity promotes. It's hardly any wonder that the divisions are what they are, with no solid definition... and the sly folks telling you that you're not spiritual because the words are to be spiritually discerned: Circular reasoning at its worst.]

And by the way, I used to use the same ill-conceived pro-Paul-language that I see in this forum... before I double-bagged Paul and set him out with the trash. I actually read the texts the Pauline dispensational colleges used. There but for the true grace of God, go I still.

 

[paarsurrey]

[we only have his word for it that he ever saw an angel of light... but nobody calls him apostle but himself... he fits every definition of a man coming in his own name, and fulfills that prophecy, too]

Paul is the reason for the division in christianity.

In Matthew 28, Jesus told His 11 to teach the nations what Jesus had taught.

Paul comes along, creates an entirely new guy wearing the name of Jesus, and teaches against what Jesus had taught... calling this teaching his gospel, by which you must believe to be saved. He says that all you have to do is believe in your heart (whatever that may mean for any individual) and confess with your mouth (whatever it means to you) the Lord Jesus... and abracadbra, you're in and can never be kicked out no matter what you do... the whole predestined, imputed righteousness malarky is smoke and mirrors... lies and illusions. If you've ever 'been there done that', you'd know what I mean.

Which is the exact opposite of what Jesus told the Jews who said they believed Him, (while seeking to kill Him) because Jesus says you must 'continue with' Him to be His disciple. And since Jesus tells us that if we love Him we will keep His commandments, we know precisely what "continue with Him" means. And since Jesus' commandments quote the Oldest Testament, we know from the get-go that the Law isn't rolled up before the New Heaven appears... just as Jesus says. People who don't see that Jesus takes First Law and expands it so that it judges the heart, haven't yet seen that the Law written on our hearts is the Sermon on the Mount &c.

Paul's version is the seed planted in shallow soil. But the real meaning behind "believe" the way Jesus uses the word, is a continuous belief in what Jesus says, which affects the actions. "Believe" a man who told you to buy a Ford, while actually buying a Chevy... well, that just won't cut it.
And Jesus tells us that the enemy even plants bad seed. In fact, nearly every one of the parables are prophecies... and Paul fulfills most of them to the letter. What he doesn't fulfill, his "twice the children of hell" proselytes will fulfill.

As we've already seen, to be a fulfilled prophecy, the whole thing must come to pass. Which means the same thing to Paul that it meant to Judas: once a person fulfills a prophecy, the entire prophecy must be let to run its course, or it's not a true prophecy. (Jonah was given a prophecy regarding the ruin of Nineveh. They changed their minds which changed their actions, and avoided the outcome of the prophecy... which is a horse of a different color.) Paul never changed his mind... nor could he have. If you kill someone, you cannot go to that person and ask for forgiveness. (Judas repented; but because his action caused more than he had anticipated, he repented. And it was still not enough to save him, since the action of becoming a traitor could not be changed because it was prophesied of him.) Paul's victims were even made to blaspheme by means of torture... take a deep breath and think about that for a minute... Jesus says that offences must come, but woe to the man who brings them.

In fact, straight up, Paul's entire "ministry" could be said to have been done in order for him to
(1) continue making the followers of Christ blaspheme the Father by naming the Law flawed and obsolete, (2) to absolve himself of the scourgings and murders he committed, and (3) to try to make Jesus' prophecies which Paul himself fulfilled into failed prophecies. Do I need to explain what that means? and what that says about Paul?

But the point is that if you believe Paul, you must disbelieve most of what Jesus says and all of His prophecies... or you must twist what Jesus said to accomodate Paul... hardly ever is it done the other way around. Some even go so far as to say that Jesus was set aside for the Kingdom Age... which would mean that Jesus words have in fact passed away... during this supposed parenthetical grace age when "do as thou wilt is the whole law." The prophets warn those in the isles who live carelessly... which is what the Pauline law of expediency means when taken to its logical conclusion.

You are correct in that Paul is the reason why people look at what is called "christianity" the way that they do. Many atheists say that they like the man Jesus, but... Meaning, they think that because the so called church has accepted the wolf Benjamin, that the followers of Jesus are all flakes... and something worse. [A word about so-called Gnosticism. If I understand the meaning, it's letting the words mean what the dictionary says they meant when the words were written... rather than some "as you like it" meaning... which is what Paulianity promotes. It's hardly any wonder that the divisions are what they are, with no solid definition... and the sly folks telling you that you're not spiritual because the words are to be spiritually discerned: Circular reasoning at its worst.]

And by the way, I used to use the same ill-conceived pro-Paul-language that I see in this forum... before I double-bagged Paul and set him out with the trash. I actually read the texts the Pauline dispensational colleges used. There but for the true grace of God, go I still.

"[we only have his word for it that he ever saw an angel of light... but nobody calls him apostle but himself... he fits every definition of a man coming in his own name, and fulfills that prophecy, too]
Paul is the reason for the division in christianity.
In Matthew 28, Jesus told His 11 to teach the nations what Jesus had taught.
Paul comes along, creates an entirely new guy wearing the name of Jesus, and teaches against what Jesus had taught."Unquote.

I totally agree with one on the following points:

1. We only have his (Paul's) word for it that he ever saw an angel of light, meaning Paul's "word" is nothing but a fake one. Right, please?
2. But nobody calls him (Paul) apostle but himself, meaning Paul is a self-designated Apostle, Jesus did no appoint him as such. Right, please?
3. He (Paul) fits every definition of a man coming in his own name, and fulfills that prophecy, too. I believe Paul doctored the anonymous narrations/gospels so as some prophecies fit on him as fulfilled. I believe that Paul was the wolf, which Jesus prophesied, according to Matthew 7:15 ,15 Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. Right, please?
4. Paul is the reason for the division in Christianity.
   
5. In Matthew 28, Jesus told His 11 to teach the nations what Jesus had taught. And Jesus had taught that his mission was only for the the reformation of Judaism people so that they believe and act on the Law of Moses and not on the additions/reduction made by the Jewish clergy after Moses.
6. Paul comes along, creates an entirely new guy wearing the name of Jesus, and teaches against what Jesus had taught. It is for this that the "Great Commission"* is much disputed by modern scholars:
   
   *Matthew 28:19 A Text-Critical Investigation, 2006.

This commission towards the Gentiles seems to be clearly manufactured by Paul and has nothing to do with Jesus.

Did I understand the contents of one's post correctly, please?

Regards

 

[Klepperman]

Do not let anyone convince you otherwise, Paul was a man appointed by Jesus. He was on his way to beat up Christians, saw Christ after he was dead, and didn't hesitate a millisecond.