Paul..fake liar or apostle?

[earlwooters]

Thomas Jefferson called Paul "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. I have heard many preachers praise the faith of Thomas Jefferson. Pauls dislike for women is apparent in his writings.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Paul appointed himself as an apostle (must be nice), and defended himself several times against charges that he profited from his actions (where there's smoke, there's fire). He contradicted the teachings of Jesus (and the real Apostles) several times, but the "church" called it "clarifying". Paul was an exterminator of real Christians, then decided that they were too numerous to defeat, so he decided to jump on the bandwagon and milk it for what it was worth.

 

[sojourner]

Thomas Jefferson called Paul "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. I have heard many preachers praise the faith of Thomas Jefferson. Pauls dislike for women is apparent in his writings.

That would be Thomas Jefferson the immanent theologian or Thomas Jefferson the not-Christian?

Paul appointed himself as an apostle (must be nice), and defended himself several times against charges that he profited from his actions (where there's smoke, there's fire). He contradicted the teachings of Jesus (and the real Apostles) several times, but the "church" called it "clarifying". Paul was an exterminator of real Christians, then decided that they were too numerous to defeat, so he decided to jump on the bandwagon and milk it for what it was worth.

Well, aren't we the self-appointed church history authority (must be nice)?

 

[kepha31]

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Paul dislikes women??? Women have been treated badly over the centuries, but I wouldn't blame it on Paul. (1)

Eph. 5:25,28 – just as wives must submit to their husbands, husbands must “love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.” Just as the Church is legally and morally obligated to submit to Christ, wives are obligated to submit to their husbands. This is why Paul makes the comparison between husbands and Christ, wives and the Church.

Eph. 5:33 – “let each one of you love his wife as himself.”

Col.. 3:19 – “husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”

Your quotes from Timothy are misleading when taken out of context with Galatians, Collosians and Ephesians. The reason radical feminists are so fat, is they have been fed the same misapplication of your verses.

In true Christianity, real women WANT to please their husbands, if only the husbands would rule from the cross instead of the couch.

The Church teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet). Instead, this order of authority reflects the divine order between God, Christ and man. God blessed the marital covenant with this order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, the “domestic church.” Just as Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church (the family of God), so the father is the head of his domestic church (his family).(2)

Paul appointed himself as an apostle (must be nice),

That is a lie.

and defended himself several times against charges that he profited from his actions (where there's smoke, there's fire

).

That is a lie.

He contradicted the teachings of Jesus (and the real Apostles) several times, but the "church" called it "clarifying".

Where?

Paul was an exterminator of real Christians, then decided that they were too numerous to defeat, so he decided to jump on the bandwagon and milk it for what it was worth.

Being shipwrecked, thrown in jail and beheaded is so much fun.

Have a drink:
(1) Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women
(2) Scripture Catholic - HUSBAND'S HEADSHIP

 

[earlwooters]

"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document."
CARL SAGAN

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
THOMAS JEFFERSON

"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teachings of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."
ALBERT SCHWEITZER

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ."
"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
WILL DURANT

"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."
WALTER KAUFMANN (Princeton Professor of Philosophy)

"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."
GEORGE BENARD SHAW

"The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."
THOMAS HARDY

"If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul."
JEREMY BENTHAM (English Philosopher)

"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
CARL JUNG

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
BISHOP JOHN S. SPONG (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)


What cannot be proven one way or another is simply a belief. A lie to one person is truth to another and vice -versa. Any statements about the authors of the various early Christian texts, are simply an educated guess. Since the authors of the early Christian writings did not bother to sign their work, and most if not all of the New Testament books cannot be proven to be written by any identified people.Paul, as an author, was once attributed to fourteen books of the NT, now it is down to seven and some believe only six. Before long it may be none.

 

[sojourner]

"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document."
CARL SAGAN

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
THOMAS JEFFERSON

"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teachings of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."
ALBERT SCHWEITZER

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ."
"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
WILL DURANT

"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."
WALTER KAUFMANN (Princeton Professor of Philosophy)

"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."
GEORGE BENARD SHAW

"The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."
THOMAS HARDY

"If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul."
JEREMY BENTHAM (English Philosopher)

"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
CARL JUNG

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
BISHOP JOHN S. SPONG (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)


What cannot be proven one way or another is simply a belief. A lie to one person is truth to another and vice -versa. Any statements about the authors of the various early Christian texts, are simply an educated guess. Since the authors of the early Christian writings did not bother to sign their work, and most if not all of the New Testament books cannot be proven to be written by any identified people.Paul, as an author, was once attributed to fourteen books of the NT, now it is down to seven and some believe only six. Before long it may be none.

Hey, gang! Let's just take a whole bunch of quotations out of context and abuse them to construct an eisegetic apology for our outlandish claim.

 

[Shermana]

Hey, gang! Let's just take a whole bunch of quotations out of context and abuse them to construct an eisegetic apology for our outlandish claim.

Why don't you go into detail on how those quotes are out of context, starting with Jung.

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

Can a man preching the Law is a curse truly be an apostle of Yaheshua who taught the Law followed the law and he himself was the fulfillment of that law. Therefore is Paul states that the Law is itself a curse and Yaheshua is the fullfillment of the law does that mean that Paul sees Christ's coming as a curse, truly a contradiction of this nature an accusation towards the character of Yaheshua would logically in my mind indicate that Paul was not receiving his mission from Christ and therefore is a fake a liar and definitely least of all apostle of the lord and his gospel.

Jesus himself actually taught that the law would pass when all things were fulfilled. You obviously missed that part. Secondly, Jesus himself said you cannot mix his teachings and law observance- one does not sew an old patch into a new garment, for it would create a tear.

 

[Shermana]

Jesus himself actually taught that the law would pass when all things were fulfilled. You obviously missed that part. Secondly, Jesus himself said you cannot mix his teachings and law observance- one does not sew an old patch into a new garment, for it would create a tear.

He also said Heaven and Earth would pass when all things are fulfilled.

Please show this quote you speak of where he said you cannot mix the Torah with his teachings, as opposed to the Pharisee's artificial rulings which turned into Talmudist Rabbinicism. The context of the Wineskin and the Garment is not about the Law itself.

I wonder what your take on Matthew 5:18 is. He who says to not follow the Least of the Commandments and preach not to, you will be called "The Least" in Heaven. Any Christian or person in general, no matter what denomination, who says you can disobey the Least of the Laws of Moses is known as a nothing by the Denizens of Heaven, the lowest rank, the "Least".

1 John 3 Sin is Transgression of the Law.

Jesus never preached that the Law was undone. Neither did Paul, or he would have been stoned to death at his trial at the end of Acts. The history of the Jewish-Christian communities and the Sabbath keeping (Up until Rome outlawed it in the 5th century) clearly shows that the Christian movement was 100% Jewish and Torah observant in its early stages until the "Gentiles" started becoming the majority in the 2nd century. Marcion was one of the main driving forces to try to separate Torah observance from the Christian movement in the beginning.

The Law itself and the artificial rulings the Pharisees were inventing is confusing to some nonetheless.

 

[sojourner]

Why don't you go into detail on how those quotes are out of context, starting with Jung.

Don't need to. Some of them don't even address the topic directly. None of them have anything to do with each other. And none of them is accompanied by a statement saying why the comment was made. This is spin doctoring at its very worst.

 

[sojourner]

The history of the Jewish-Christian communities and the Sabbath keeping (Up until Rome outlawed it in the 5th century) clearly shows that the Christian movement was 100% Jewish and Torah observant in its early stages until the "Gentiles" started becoming the majority in the 2nd century. Marcion was one of the main driving forces to try to separate Torah observance from the Christian movement in the beginning.

I take it you're saying that only Jewish-Xy is real Xy?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The history of the Jewish-Christian communities and the Sabbath keeping (Up until Rome outlawed it in the 5th century) clearly shows that the Christian movement was 100% Jewish and Torah observant in its early stages until the "Gentiles" started becoming the majority in the 2nd century.

Which historians?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Which historians?

At least he didn't think that it was the 18th century.

 

[Shermana]

Which historians?

Try Socrates Scholasticus for one. Rome went out of its way to outlaw Sabbath and Judaizing observance as it became established. The history of the "Orthodox" version of Christianity is one of brutally suppressing its Jewish roots. The transition from an entirely Jewish Torah obedient movement to some new Syncretic Alexandrian/Roman based Lawless religion of "faith and grace" was not organic or smooth, and required a lot of blood and imprisonment in order to "Dejudaize" its roots. The "orthodox" seen historically is purely an artificial gentile creation and the result of "killing the competition".


The Sabbath Across the Centuries (Chapter 11)

"

For almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [Lord's supper] on the Sabbath of every week." Socrates Scholasticus, Eccl. History
"Then the spiritual seed of Abraham [Christians] fled to Pella, on the other side of Jordan, where they found a safe place of refuge, and could serve their Master and keep His Sabbath." Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History.
Philo, the philosopher and historian, affirms that this Sabbath was on the seventh-day of the week.

2ND CENTURY

"The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons... They derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to that purpose." D. T H. Morer (Church of England) Dialogues on the Lord's Day, London, 1701.

2ND, 3RD, 4TH CENTURIES

"From the apostles' time until the Council of Laodicea [364 AD], the holy observation of the Jews' Sabbath continued, as may be proved out of many authors: yea, notwithstanding the decree of the council against it." John Ley, Sunday A Sabbath, London, 1640.
3RD CENTURY

"As early as 225 A.D. there existed large Sabbath-keeping bishoprics or conferences of the Church of the East stretching from Palestine to India." Mingana, Early Spread of Christianity.
4TH CENTURY

"In the church of Milan (Italy) it seems that the Saturday was held in a fair esteem. Not that the Eastern churches or any of the rest which observed that day, were inclined to Judaism; but that they came together on the Sabbath day to worship Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath." Dr. Peter Heylyn, History of the Sabbath, London, 1636.
"For more than 17 centuries the Abyssinian Church continued to sanctify Saturday as the holy day of the 4th commandment." Ambrose de Morbius.
"Ambrose, the celebrated bishop of Milan, said that when he was in Milan he observed Saturday, but when in Rome observed Sunday. This gave rise to the proverb, 'When you are in Rome, do as Rome does."' Heylyn, History of the Sabbath
Persia 335-375 A.D. "They [the Christians] despise our sun-god. Did not Zoroaster, the sainted founder of our divine beliefs, institute Sunday one thousand years ago in honor of the sun and supplant the Sabbath of the Old Testament? Yet these Christians have divine services on Saturday." O'Leary, The Syriac Church and Fathers.
5TH CENTURY

"Augustine [whose testimony is made the more impressive by his being a committed Sunday-keeper] shows.. that the [seventh-day] Sabbath was observed in his day 'in the greater part of the Christian world."' Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, voL 1, pp. 353, 354
"Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church." Lyman Coleman, Ancient Christianity Exemplified , p. 526.
"In 411 [Mingana, leader of the Eastern Churches] appointed a metropolitan director for China. These churches were sanctifying the seventh day." J. F. Colthart, The Sabbath Through The Centuries, p. 11.
6TH CENTURY

"In this latter instance they [the Scottish Church] seem to have foflowed a custom of which we find traces in the early monastic church of Ireland by which they held Saturday to be the Sabbath on which they rested from all their labors." W. T. Skene, Adamnan's Lfe of St. Columba, 1874, p. 96.
On Columba of lona: "Having continued his labors in Scotland thirty-four years, he clearly and openly foretold his death, and on Saturday, June ninth, said to his disciple Diermit: 'This is the day called the Sabbath, that is, the rest day, and such it will truly be to me; for it will put an end to my labors."' Butler's Lives of the Saints, article on "St. Columba."
7TH CENTURY

"It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday ... as a day of rest from labor. They obeyed the fourth commandment literally on the seventh day of the week." Jas. C. Moffatt, The Chutch In Scotland.
From Gregory I, Pope of Rome 590-604: "Roman citizens: It has come to me that certain men of perverse spirit have disserninated among you things depraved and opposed to the holy faith, so that they forbid anything to be done on the day of the Sabbath. What shall I call them except preachers of anti-christ?"

The Origin of Sunday Worship

Contrary to what many Christians believe, Sunday was not observed by New Testament Christians as a day of worship. They kept Saturday, the seventh day of the week.
The question of how Sunday, the first day of the week, replaced Saturday, the seventh day of the week, as the main day of Christian worship has received increasing attention in recent years. One widely acclaimed study, for example, suggests that the weekly Christian Sunday arose from Sunday-evening communion services in the immediate postresurrection period, with Sunday itself being a workday until after the time of Constantine the Great in the early fourth century.[1] Eventually, however, Sunday ceased to be a workday and became a Christian Sabbath." Some simpler and more popular views are that either (1) Sunday was substituted immediately after Christ's resurrection for the seventh-day Sabbath, or (2) Sundaykeeping was introduced directly from paganism during the second century or later. But is either of these views correct? What do the actual source materials tell us?


Moreover, it was a struggle that did not terminate quickly, for as we have seen, the fifth-century church historians Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen provide a picture of Sabbath worship services alongside Sunday worship services as being the pattern throughout Christendom in their day, except in Rome and Alexandria. It appears that the "Christian Sabbath" as a replacement for the earlier biblical Sabbath was a development of the sixth century and later. The earliest church council to deal with the matter was a regional eastern one meeting in Laodicea about A.D. 364. Although this council still manifested respect for the Sabbath as well as Sunday in the special lections (Scripture readings) designated for those two days, it nonetheless stipulated the following in its Canon 29: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ."[37] The regulation with regard to working on Sunday was rather moderate in that Christians should not work on that day if possible! However, more significant was the fact that this council reversed the original command of God and the practice of the earliest Christians with regard to the seventh-day Sabbath. God had said, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work" (Exodus 20:8-10, RSV). This council said, instead, "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Try Socrates Scholasticus for one. Rome went out of its way to outlaw Sabbath and Judaizing observance as it became established.

For one thing, Socrates Scholasticus (a 5th century writer) is not entirely reliable nor should he be read without the whole host of material that came before him.

Secondly, your quotes don't even address the question = when did Christianity separate from Judaism?

All of the evidence that you're referring to comes long after this separation.

 

[Shermana]

For one thing, Socrates Scholasticus (a 5th century writer) is not entirely reliable nor should he be read without the whole host of material that came before him.

Secondly, your quotes don't even address the question = when did Christianity separate from Judaism?

All of the evidence that you're referring to comes long after this separation.

Neither is Eusebius reliable. No historian is reliable. But it sounds like you accept Catholic versions of history. Perhaps you can point to a single Historian of the era that you consider reliable, and perhaps you can explain why Socrates Scholasticus is not reliable. I've not yet read any critique calling him unreliable, can you link to one? I've read numerous positions calling Eusebius a Pious frauder, but not for S-Scholasticus. Please provide evidence for your claim.

Please show what "host of material' before Scholasticus paints a different picture.

At what point do we have evidence that "Christians" called Sunday the Sabbath instead?

Also, are you implying that the Romans did NOT ban Sabbath observance and "Judaizing" through bloodshed and imprisonment?

"As early as 225 A.D. there existed large Sabbath-keeping bishoprics or conferences of the Church of the East stretching from Palestine to India.

Is that unreliable too?

Are you saying that only the "orthodox" version of the history is reliable? If so, why?

There's also the issue of the Ethiopian Church, but hey who cares about them. They're not important, right?

 

[sojourner]

Try Socrates Scholasticus for one. Rome went out of its way to outlaw Sabbath and Judaizing observance as it became established. The history of the "Orthodox" version of Christianity is one of brutally suppressing its Jewish roots. The transition from an entirely Jewish Torah obedient movement to some new Syncretic Alexandrian/Roman based Lawless religion of "faith and grace" was not organic or smooth, and required a lot of blood and imprisonment in order to "Dejudaize" its roots. The "orthodox" seen historically is purely an artificial gentile creation and the result of "killing the competition".


The Sabbath Across the Centuries (Chapter 11)

"



The Origin of Sunday Worship

"...but I don't have a huge chip on my shoulder, or anything..."

 

[sojourner]

The history of the Jewish-Christian communities and the Sabbath keeping (Up until Rome outlawed it in the 5th century) clearly shows that the Christian movement was 100% Jewish and Torah observant in its early stages until the "Gentiles" started becoming the majority in the 2nd century.

You say that like it's a bad thing...
Xy is largely reinvented wherever it finds itself. Currently, the Africans and Native Americans are reinventing it. So what? Xy is a living, breathing, and growing organic thing.

 

[earlwooters]

Tertullian, Against Marcion
I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he [i.e., Paul] was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design [i.e., on the Road to Damascus]. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus [i.e., Marcion], supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him [i.e., Paul]: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ. If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ.... Let the apostle, belong to your other god:

Distrust and accusations have followed Paul every since his supposed conversion to some weird kind of Christianity. Jesus brought the "GOOD NEWS", Paul brought his own GOOD NEWS. He couldn't have gotten it from Jesus because he never knew Jesus. His letters predate the Gospels. What was he preaching then?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Neither is Eusebius reliable. No historian is reliable. But it sounds like you accept Catholic versions of history. Perhaps you can point to a single Historian of the era that you consider reliable, and perhaps you can explain why Socrates Scholasticus is not reliable. I've not yet read any critique calling him unreliable, can you link to one? I've read numerous positions calling Eusebius a Pious frauder, but not for S-Scholasticus. Please provide evidence for your claim.

Please show what "host of material' before Scholasticus paints a different picture.

At what point do we have evidence that "Christians" called Sunday the Sabbath instead?

Also, are you implying that the Romans did NOT ban Sabbath observance and "Judaizing" through bloodshed and imprisonment?


Is that unreliable too?

Are you saying that only the "orthodox" version of the history is reliable? If so, why?

There's also the issue of the Ethiopian Church, but hey who cares about them. They're not important, right?

You're about 150 years off. Maybe more.

And yes, I did read what you posted. Don't flatter yourself: I didn't misunderstand you.

You've misinterpreted your sources.

 

[Shermana]

You're about 150 years off. Maybe more.

And yes, I did read what you posted. Don't flatter yourself: I didn't misunderstand you.

You've misinterpreted your sources.

Please elaborate on why you claim I misinterpreted my sources, and why didn't you answer any of the other questions?

I can repeat them for you if you want: Starting with: Why did you say that S-Scholasticus is unreliable, and why is Eusebius reliable?

Why would the Romans have to ban Sabbath practice with threat of imprisonment and killing?

I don't even understand fully what you mean by "150 years off", what evidence is there exactly of the 1st and 2nd century churches exactly? The Didache is said by most scholars to be very pro-Jewish.