Has Saint Paul hijacked Christianity?

[oldbadger]

Has Saint Paul hijacked Christianity?

Yep! Sure did! And look at the trouble and self righteous, hypocritical, torment it caused to so many lovely and innocent people!

I don't want to deny that there are lots of Christian-like concepts in Paul's epistles. Nevertheless, reading his works as a whole, it is clear that his personality was very tormented, surely devoured by a grave inner conflict.

When I (occasionally) read Paul's rants I often wonder whether he might have been compensating for and hiding his true sexuality. As Shakespeare described such conditions, 'Methinks he doth protest too much!'

 

[oldbadger]

Despite Pauls flaws and bigotries, he did manage to get passed the jewish elitism Jesus showed by not wanting to spread the word to gentiles. ................

Nope!
Jesus was not showing elitism.
His main-objective was to unite the working classes, the peasants, to demand that the upper class leave from copying 'hellenical' Roman and Greek fashions, cultures, ways and even Gods, and return to the straight and proper ways of the old laws, thus providing proper and fair providence for the people. Gentiles were nothing to do with these old laws, indeed, it was wealthy Gentiles who had lead the Jewish upper class into greed, hypocrisy, lawlessness and carelessness. John the Baptist described them rather well!

 

[Brickjectivity]

What I think is that mainstream Christianity has been totally and inexorably influenced by Saint Paul's philosophical speculation which doesn't match with the most important principles of the evangelical message (the Gospels) To sum them up, it is sufficient to say that the Gospels clearly speak of the Kingdom of God, which is attainable only through men's efforts, so therefore Heaven is reached only through free will, that is, the choice of Good and the rejection of sin.

You have thought about this, and heaven seems very important to you.

On the contrary, Paul speaks of a mankind that can't do but sin, and only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed. So..according to this Anatolian philosopher, it is sufficient to believe that Christ was crucified to save us from sin, and that all our sins are forgiven through this simple act of faith.

My personal opinion is that Paul does not suggest this and also does not suggest it in Romans 7:21. He appears to feel that there is inner conflict but that we can choose to do the right thing.

I would like to ask rationalists here :...do you think there's something logical in this? I think there's nothing more twisted, anti-Christian and illogical than this theological principle.
This contradict all Jesus' parables, which clearly say that only the choice of good and altruism is the key to both worldly and otherworldly happiness.

There is no way around personal responsibility, altruism, love.

You don't need to be a psychologist to understand the reason why Paul invented this concept.
Paul had been a wicked person who persecuted Christians (among whom St Stephen) and probably executed some of them. Suddenly and miraculously, he was enlightened by God and found out he was doing evil. Once he saw the light, he surely was ashamed of himself. And this shame was accentuated by the fact that there were so many Jews and Pagans, whose behavior was irreproachable: Jews whose life was very spiritual and Christian-like, and Pagans (especially after the Pagan renewing movement) who had never hurt anybody, but practiced abstinence and chastity.
The only way to feel better than these people was to create a concept that excluded Non-Christians from salvation.That is, inventing the concept of salvation by faith alone, making us believe that all sins are equal and redemption is earned by faith, regardless of personal merits.
Saul said to himself: "How can I feel a better person than those people? Simple: I rely on the story that Jesus's blood redeems people and erases sin. So, no matter how good and sinless Jews and Pagans are, I will always be better than them, because I believe that Jesus' blood has saved me."

It is certainly terrible to live under such a delusion that there is equivalence between professed beliefs and actions. Living and doing are much better than talking.

I don't want to deny that there are lots of Christian-like concepts in Paul's epistles. Nevertheless, reading his works as a whole, it is clear that his personality was very tormented, surely devoured by a grave inner conflict.

I know that some Christians will "massacre" me...that's why I would really use the help and support of @wizanda and @Kelly of the Phoenix

I do no know why he appears conflicted. It could be that he changes his mind at different times or that he is not one person. I think he wrote so long ago that we don't always follow the conversations in his letters. We also do not have entire conversations but only letters. Paul's letters are often in response to letters written to him, but we don't have the letters written to Paul and have only his responses. It is as if we are listening to another person speak on the telephone and only hear half of what is said.

 

[roger1440]

I have my doubts Paul "saw the light" for anything other than a Hellenized realization that if you can't win the battle, be the Trojan Horse and doom them from within. I consider him a virus.

I can go one better. I have my doubts on the existence of Paul. The Pauline letters makes Paul into some sort of super duper Jewish evangelist. Everything about Paul seems to good to be true. He wasn't your garden variety Jew.

"While he was still fairly young, he was sent to Jerusalem to receive his education at the school of Gamaliel,[Acts 22:3] one of the most noted rabbis in history. The Hillel school was noted for giving its students a balanced education, likely giving Paul broad exposure to classical literature, philosophy, and ethics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Early_life

Paul dedicates his life preaching about Jesus yet he knows absolutely nothing about the life of Jesus and what Jesus taught. Didn't Jesus do or preach anything at all? Paul doesn't seem to know. According to the New Testament Paul had met some of the Apostles.

 

[Estro Felino]

Besides, I think that it would be interesting and helpful for us Christians to listen to a Jewish person's opinion. Particularly about Saint Paul's complex relationship with Israel. Paul contradicts himself in Romans, when he judges Jews' behavior and tradition. So I kindly invite @Tumah to express his opinion on these passages, if he wants to.

First passage: Romans 9:30 . In this passage, Paul clearly condemns Jews because they rely on the Torah, so they believe they are righteous because of their merits (which is exactly what Jesus commands us to do in His parables, so Paul's statement about Jews is clearly anti-Christian).

Second passage: Romans 11:25 and Romans 11:28. Here Paul says that Jews, thanks to their divine election, will receive God's mercy, although they haven't believed in Jesus.

All this speculation, full of contradictions and corrections, is the result of Paul's desperate attempt to make the Old Testament match with the Gospels, as if there was a logical and historical connection. In my opinion, there is not.
Jesus has never spoken to a particular group (Jews or Pagans), letting us understand that his message is universal and that all nations of the world are equal in God's eyes.

 

[Tumah]

Besides, I think that it would be interesting and helpful for us Christians to listen to a Jewish person's opinion. Particularly about Saint Paul's complex relationship with Israel. Paul contradicts himself in Romans, when he judges Jews' behavior and tradition. So I kindly invite @Tumah to express his opinion on these passages, if he wants to.

First passage: Romans 9:30 . In this passage, Paul clearly condemns Jews because they rely on the Torah, so they believe they are righteous because of their merits (which is exactly what Jesus commands us to do in His parables, so Paul's statement about Jews is clearly anti-Christian).

Second passage: Romans 11:25 and Romans 11:28. Here Paul says that Jews, thanks to their divine election, will receive God's mercy, although they haven't believed in Jesus.

All this speculation, full of contradictions and corrections, is the result of Paul's desperate attempt to make the Old Testament match with the Gospels, as if there was a logical and historical connection. In my opinion, there is not.
Jesus has never spoken to a particular group (Jews or Pagans), letting us understand that his message is universal and that all nations of the world are equal in God's eyes.

I don't really know anything about the Gospels, so I wouldn't be able to have any sort of opinion about how Paul fits or doesn't fit with them.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Paul was teaching, evangelising forming churches and writing his epistles long before the Gospels were writter.
During those early Christian years he had a greater influence in the new gentile churches than any other of the Apostles.
It is little wonder that his influence still abounds today.
There is little reason to suppose that that the church in Jerusalem could have survived as a Jewish only sect.
It certainly was not responsible for the vast network of interrelated christian community's and churches that we find in the world today.

However not many would suggest that he always got things right, but he has been an evangelist ememeritus.

 

[Kenny]

I believe Paul was a true believer that had an encounter with Jesus Christ and given the right hand of fellowship by the Apostles in a sign of agreement. It is easy to understand, IMV, why he was so impactful... his understanding of scripture was a key component to the expounding of the growing revelation given by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I believe Paul was a true believer that had an encounter with Jesus Christ and given the right hand of fellowship by the Apostles in a sign of agreement. It is easy to understand, IMV, why he was so impactful... his understanding of scripture was a key component to the expounding of the growing revelation given by the Holy Spirit.

The only scripture available to him was the Jewish tradition. Christian scripture did not yet exist.
his source for the teachings of Jesus came from his contact with the other apostles.

His epistles are largely his attempts to reconcile what the various churches that he visited, believed, with what he understood to be the message of Jesus.
Sometimes he seems a confused as to the meanings as they were. This is understandable when you consider that he had spent no time learning directly as a disciple.

 

[Kenny]

The only scripture available to him was the Jewish tradition. Christian scripture did not yet exist.
his source for the teachings of Jesus came from his contact with the other apostles.

His epistles are largely his attempts to reconcile what the various churches that he visited, believed, with what he understood to be the message of Jesus.
Sometimes he seems a confused as to the meanings as they were. This is understandable when you consider that he had spent no time learning directly as a disciple.

That isn't quite my understanding.

All of the NT principles were foreshadowed in the OT. As Paul went and shared all that he had learned with the Apostles, the Apostles realized that he was right (if I understand scriptures correctly) and gave him the right hand of fellowship. Even Peter's epistle gave Paul a thumbs up.

 

[metis]

I give Paul and "A" for being imaginative, which is what the early church badly needed because there were theological problems that had to be dealt with, such as not being allowed to attend synagogues and maybe not being allowed to perform the Temple sacrifices, disunity within their ranks, keeping the church from splintering because of the wide distribution of the church throughout the diaspora, the question of leadership, differences in attitude in regards to the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaiic Law, etc., etc., etc...

Now, this is not to say he always said and wrote the right things, but he does appear to be quite imaginative and flexible when encouraging adjustments mixed in with orthodoxy.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I can go one better. I have my doubts on the existence of Paul. The Pauline letters makes Paul into some sort of super duper Jewish evangelist. Everything about Paul seems to good to be true. He wasn't your garden variety Jew.

"While he was still fairly young, he was sent to Jerusalem to receive his education at the school of Gamaliel,[Acts 22:3] one of the most noted rabbis in history. The Hillel school was noted for giving its students a balanced education, likely giving Paul broad exposure to classical literature, philosophy, and ethics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Early_life

Paul dedicates his life preaching about Jesus yet he knows absolutely nothing about the life of Jesus and what Jesus taught. Didn't Jesus do or preach anything at all? Paul doesn't seem to know. According to the New Testament Paul had met some of the Apostles.

But we see those kinds of evangelists nowadays, so the concept is there.

There is little reason to suppose that that the church in Jerusalem could have survived as a Jewish only sect.

So Christianity doesn't exist because God wanted it to, but because gentiles had better salespeople involved?

All of the NT principles were foreshadowed in the OT.

Or all of the NT principles were taken from the OT. Some NT authors made the OT out like a checklist for their characters to do to be justified. Rehashing plot points and themes does not prove the former texts predicted the latter.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus taught Christ Consciousness. Paul's teachings - and actions - were anything but.

Paul led a schism against True Christianity.

Ironically, there is more Paul - who never even met Jesus* - in the Bible New Testament than there is Jesus!
Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine is centred on Pauline philosophy. [Hence I refer to it as Churchianity, rather than Christianity ....]

Some of the Pauline Epistles, the Pastorals for example, weren't even written by Paul. The others suffered interpolation. [Even the Catholic Encyclopaedia concedes that "even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated".]

Isn't this Christ consciousness?
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?

I believe the contrary is true. Paul tried to heal the schism created by the Judaizers.

I don't believe Paul's philosophy leads to this.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The Pauline Paradox

When Paul started preaching about Jesus as the Messiah and son of God, he never realized that he had created a huge paradox.

You see, for Jesus to be the Messiah, he had to be a biological son of Joseph's, who was the one from the Tribe of Judah, whose Tribe the Messiah was supposed to come from. Mary was from the Tribe of Levi. She was of the family of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron the Levite. (Luke 1:5,36)

Since Jesus is also claimed to be the son of God, he could not be the Messiah, because God is not subject to human genealogies.

On the other hand, if Christians decided to grab the chance of at least to make of Jesus the Messiah by agreeing to drop the tale of the virgin birth, and to admit that he was indeed Joseph's biological son, he could not be son of God; and here the situation would get worse because even the doctrine of the Trinity would collapse.

That's indeed a huge paradox that can be accepted only by faith, which requires no explanation. But then again, where faith begins, knowledge ends. And for lack of knowledge, People perish. (Hosea 4:6)

Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her. If not, the Sphynx will keep waiting patiently beside the Egyptian pyramids for the passers-by.

Good luck!

 

[Estro Felino]

Now, if there is anyone out there with enough wisdom to unriddle this paradox, I'll be more than happy to take my hat off to him or her. If not, the Sphynx will keep waiting patiently beside the Egyptian pyramids for the passers-by.

Good luck!

There is nobody who can unriddle this paradox...simply because it's just one of the many contradictions of the Pauline theology. But if someone is able to find a single passage in the entire Old Testament, which speaks about Mary, and says that the Messiah would have been born from a virgin...I will acknowledge I am wrong.

Now, this is not to say he always said and wrote the right things, but he does appear to be quite imaginative and flexible when encouraging adjustments mixed in with orthodoxy.

As I said, I acknowledge there are lots of beautiful Christian-like passages in his epistles.
Nevertheless, if we analyze the two Epistles to the Corinthians, it is clear that Paul is not able to hide his antipathy towards the Greek culture, that he judges totally corrupt and characterized by immorality.
I think I can empathize with those Greeks, in whose minds the concept of sexual morality didn't even exist (and had never existed in their culture). So therefore, it must have been traumatic to them, to be strictly reproached and shamed by a Jewish person, who took for granted that certain things are to be considered immoral.
We can't even deny that the Hellenistic culture (at that time) was very open-minded and slightly oriented towards a revaluation of the woman's role. So...I am totally sure that Paul's openly misogynistic statements must have disoriented those Corinthians.

 

[Augustus]

When an Egyptian pharaoh tried to introduce monotheism, was it because of a divine epiphany or because he was tired of the priests at all the various temples getting more money than the palace?

When Samuel griped about the country wanting a king, was he doing so because of loyalty to God or because at the moment he had the most political power?

And presumably some people actually believed as they spoke. The idea of people were Divinely favoured was commonplace for example. It is possible he was being loyal to God because he had the most power.

The way some people present it they'd probably say the Christian martyrs never believed what they said, they just wanted to get free entry to the Circus Maximus.

When it was "agreed" that sacrifices could only happen in the Temple at Jerusalem, was it because ... ok, really ... it was about monopolizing a money-making thing, wasn't it?

I mean, God is omnipresent. Even if you don't believe that, you can technically pray to Him from anywhere. There is no rational reason why it has to be occur in a particular building. Self-serving notions are not modern.

It would be rational to preserve the community and orthodoxy/orthopraxy amongst other things.

While self-serving behaviour is not modern, some people seem to assume that the pre-moderns thought exactly like we do today and ascribe motives to their behaviour as if they were the equivalent figure in the 21st century.

True motives can never be known for certain, but there is no reason to assume the default option is 'they were in it for the money'.

 

[Kenny]

I give Paul and "A" for being imaginative, which is what the early church badly needed because there were theological problems that had to be dealt with, such as not being allowed to attend synagogues and maybe not being allowed to perform the Temple sacrifices, disunity within their ranks, keeping the church from splintering because of the wide distribution of the church throughout the diaspora, the question of leadership, differences in attitude in regards to the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaiic Law, etc., etc., etc...

Now, this is not to say he always said and wrote the right things, but he does appear to be quite imaginative and flexible when encouraging adjustments mixed in with orthodoxy.

Some people call it imaginative and others view it as led by God's Spirit. I go with the latter but don't hold it against you that you would go with the former

 

[metis]

Some people call it imaginative and others view it as led by God's Spirit. I go with the latter but don't hold it against you that you would go with the former

Well, then God must be a schizophrenic because Paul and James don't appear to be on the same page at times.

Hey, who knows.

 

[Kenny]

Well, then God must be a schizophrenic because Paul and James don't appear to be on the same page at times.

Hey, who knows.

There was a letter that was written to three women without punctuation about which one he wanted as a wife. The three added the punctuation, each reading into it what they wanted to see--having him pick her. He added the punctuation as it actually was... none of them.

We interpret what we want to read... and I don't find a contradiction but rather a harmony.

OF COURSE, I read it the right way.

 

[Desert Snake]

On the contrary, Paul speaks of a mankind that can't do but sin, and only through the faith in Jesus' blood it can be redeemed. So..according to this Anatolian philosopher, it is sufficient to believe that Christ was crucified to save us from sin, and that all our sins are forgiven through this simple act of faith.

That is, inventing the concept of salvation by faith alone, making us believe that all sins are equal and redemption is earned by faith, regardless of personal merits.

Your premise is presenting a contradiction, namely that Paul teaches that ''all sins are forgiven'' /he doesn't teach that, it's contextual, and conditional
&, then at the same time,
you are stating that Paul also says that people must have faith in Jesus, /for redemption.


It's your faulty interpretation of Scripture, that is the problem