The "Paul" that anti-Christians invented

[Eli G]

It may seem strange, but the truth is that some anti-Christians have invented a character called "Paul" to replace the real Paul we learn about in the Scriptures.

That pseudo-Paul, they say, is an enemy of Jesus Christ who invented a new religion different that the one Jesus and his apostles taught, and they say that this "Paul" dedicated himself to gaining followers of his own.

In this topic we are going to review with you the things that the Bible says about the true Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, who worked so much for the kingdom of Christ and because of which he suffered so much.

Stay close, because those who are dedicated to pseudo-Paul's propaganda are not going to stay calm when they begin to realize that someone deceived them... or perhaps they already knew it?

 

[Eli G]

For those who did not know, Luke, the author of the gospel that bears his name, was not one of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

He apparently became a Christian shortly after Jesus' death, but he had the privilege of writing a gospel about the life and teachings of Jesus. He was not a witness to the things he tells us, but as he himself says, he did an exhaustive investigation into the events. He probably wrote his gospel between 56 and 58 AD.

The interesting thing is that he was also the writer of the book called Acts of the Apostles. And although some probably do not know it, in that book he dedicates the last chapters (from 13 to 28) to talking about Paul's missionary journeys and his arrests and imprisonment for preaching about Jesus.

So, take into account that the author of the Gospel of Luke, is the one who tells us more details about Paul, than Paul himself in his 14 letters that he wrote.

PS: Let's hope that some of the defenders of the pseudo-Paul will appear here and explain to us where they got the malevolent intentions of the pseudo-Paul they created ...from the book of Acts that Luke wrote? ...from the 14 letters that Paul wrote? And if not, from where? Details, please. Thank you.

 

[Eli G]

For those who do not know yet, the apostle Peter and Paul met personally and shared many experiences together.

For example, we are told that on one occasion, while Peter (Cephas) was in Antioch, he separated himself from Christians of non-Jewish origin for fear of Jewish Christians who would visit his congregation. When Paul found out what he had done, he went and rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy, because regardless of whether they were Jews or Gentiles, he himself had already learned that there were no differences.

Gal. 2:11 However, when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barnabas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Cephas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”

Despite that, the Christian relationship between Paul and Peter was respectful. The apostle of Jesus Christ said the following about Paul (considered "apostle to the nations") in one of his letters:

2 Pet. 3:14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Did you notice that Peter mentions Paul's letters and attributes them to the wisdom given him? He even puts them in the same place as the rest of the Scriptures, demonstrating that Paul's letters were considered inspired by the apostle Peter and the rest of the Christians of the first century.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For those who do not know yet, the apostle Peter and Paul met personally and shared many experiences together.

For example, we are told that on one occasion, while Peter (Cephas) was in Antioch, he separated himself from Christians of non-Jewish origin for fear of Jewish Christians who would visit his congregation. When Paul found out what he had done, he went and rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy, because regardless of whether they were Jews or Gentiles, he himself had already learned that there were no differences.

Gal. 2:11 However, when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. 13 The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense, so that even Barnabas was led along with them in their pretense. 14 But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Cephas before them all: “If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?”

Despite that, the Christian relationship between Paul and Peter was respectful. The apostle of Jesus Christ said the following about Paul (considered "apostle to the nations") in one of his letters:

2 Pet. 3:14 Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Did you notice that Peter mentions Paul's letters and attributes them to the wisdom given him? He even puts them in the same place as the rest of the Scriptures, demonstrating that Paul's letters were considered inspired by the apostle Peter and the rest of the Christians of the first century.

There is no way Peter would ever say that in light of Matthew 24:23.

It's clearly redacted and added in afterwards and if I was still a Christian I would have completely omitted Paul and all teaching from the Bible and state he was in no way an apostle.

 

[Eli G]

There is no way Peter would ever say that in light of Matthew 24:23.

It's clearly redacted and added in afterwards and if I was still a Christian I would have completely omitted Paul and all teaching from the Bible and state he was in no way an apostle.

Prove it with more than just words.

That's the only thing the defenders of pseudo-Paul use, like the defenders of any false doctrine, useless verbiage.

 

[wellwisher]

Saul spoke “murderous threats” (Acts 9:1) and made evil plans against the Lord's disciples. But Jesus changed Saul's plans and chose him to become one of his greatest missionaries. With his name changed to Paul, he preached across the Roman Empire, over 10,000 miles, and even appeared before Caesar.

Before his conversion, Paul was known as Saul and was "a Pharisee of Pharisees", who "intensely persecuted" the followers of Jesus.

Saul was very intelligent but was the worse enemy of the Christians, until his conversion where he becomes their best spokesman. He was arrested twice, by Rome, with him being released after the first arrest. His second arrest occurs under Emperor Nero, who hated the Jews and Christians. Paul was able to address the kangaroo court held by the Roman Senate; to plead his case, before he was executed.

What made Paul such a threat was him teaching that Jesus had fulfilled the law and make law obsolete. This was threatening to the Romans who sensed loss of power over their empire, if nobody obeyed their law; slave rebellion by a religion of slaves.

Paul Said, sin is not imputed where there is no law. In the USA, marijuana laws are decided by states. You can stand on the border between two state, with different laws; one leg sins and the other does not. Sin is an artifact of law and not other way around. Pronouns were never a sin until the Liberals made a law.

Paul Also Said; Sin (created by law) taking opportunity through the commandment then produces sin of every kind. The best example of this was the taboo not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Prohibition creates temptation. If nothing had been said, that tree may not have been noticed. But once you say, that it is a taboo to drink alcohol; Prohibition, a whole range of other evil and sin appears; Mafia. After that taboo was instituted, sin expanded beyond just drinking; wide range of crimes that fed off that original taboo.

The idea of law being made moot, should have been seen as a blessing, since sin will decrease when law is removed. In the USA, marijuana was originally defined as a sin in all 50 states. Now that it is decided, state to state, the total number of sins is lower, with less extrapolated crime. Yet some still want to keep adding law and sin and think that is the solution. They were smarter then that most are today. I owuild think that modern psychology would speak up but their systems are not that advanced. They make money of the aberrations of law and taboo.

It would not be easy to just stop all law, since the damage was done and it would take time to clear out.

 

[Spice]

It may seem strange, but the truth is that some anti-Christians have invented a character called "Paul" to replace the real Paul we learn about in the Scriptures.

I am not anti-Christian, however, I do take exception to placing Saul of Taurus at a near equal level to Jesus the Christ.

That pseudo-Paul, they say, is an enemy of Jesus Christ who invented a new religion different that the one Jesus and his apostles taught, and they say that this "Paul" dedicated himself to gaining followers of his own.

Paul was not, IMO, an "enemy of Jesus" but intially a jealous, disturbed man who got caught up in the attention given to the new order of Messianic Jews.

In this topic we are going to review with you the things that the Bible says about the true Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, who worked so much for the kingdom of Christ and because of which he suffered so much.

There's no question he worked diligently and suffered greatly, and without him, Peter's mission could not be fulfilled. But at Jesus's words, Peter was to be the rock of Jesus's mission. But now that the Good News is well spread and received, why is it Paul's words over shadow those of Christ -- who was a devout Jew?

Stay close, because those who are dedicated to pseudo-Paul's propaganda are not going to stay calm when they begin to realize that someone deceived them... or perhaps they already knew it?

I do not believe I have been deceived by the Holy Spirit that guided me away from the confusion and dismay caused by the teachings of Paul, into the clarity offered by Jesus. I have taken time to investigate, and will continue to do so, all who speak of God and our relationship with Him, but will stubbornly insist that I go directly, without bounds, to God who lives in my heart, for guidance.

Now, we shall proceed....

 

[Eli G]

There are many things that can be said in favor of Paul and all of them can be demonstrated with biblical passages that support them. We could not assure things about a person who lived in 1st century AD without showing documents proving that those things really happened like that.

I opened this topic because there are many anti-Christians who are dedicated to spreading lies about a "Paul", coming from their own imagination. Clearly, if you invent a character out of nothing, you can impute sayings and actions to him as you like to develop the character... but Paul was a real Christian, who died for the Christ and did many things for the truth.

Whatever a defender of the truth wants to say about Paul, it would be excellent if he/she provided the biblical passages from which he gets the information, and thus we demonstrate to the lying inventors of that pseudo-Paul that they cannot replace a real person with a invented character just because.

 

[Spice]

For those who did not know, Luke, the author of the gospel that bears his name, was not one of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

Indeed, he was not. He was an educated peer of Paul's.

He apparently became a Christian shortly after Jesus' death, but he had the privilege of writing a gospel about the life and teachings of Jesus.

Each of the Gospels chosen by the council for canonization were chosen to represent a particular audience of early followers of The Way. Luke's "voice" represents the pulpit notes, so to speak, for the speakers to the Roman educated audience. These audiences wanted "facts" and "details" and were so provided with more flourish than the original (possibly after the Didache) of Mark, and even the expanded Mark that is called the Gospel of Matthew.

He was not a witness to the things he tells us, but as he himself says, he did an exhaustive investigation into the events. He probably wrote his gospel between 56 and 58 AD.

The Gospel of Luke is dated between 80 and 130 CE, so after the first Jewish Revolt. Outside many of the Epistles of Paul, which the dating alone accounted significantly for the decision to canonize, the Passion Narrative and the Lost Sayings of Gospel Q are the only known early writings that conclusively pre-date the Titus army destruction of Jerusalem.

The interesting thing is that he was also the writer of the book called Acts of the Apostles. And although some probably do not know it, in that book he dedicates the last chapters (from 13 to 28) to talking about Paul's missionary journeys and his arrests and imprisonment for preaching about Jesus.

Yes, and although very close to Paul, possibly even his secretary for a bit, Acts has two variations on the Road to Damascus story. Acts 9:1-19 and then, in his own accounts found in Acts 22:6-21, and Acts 26:12-18. Readers please note how Paul embellishes his own story to suit the situation as he easily admits he did as needed in 1 Corinthians 9.

So, take into account that the author of the Gospel of Luke, is the one who tells us more details about Paul, than Paul himself in his 14 letters that he wrote.

Indeed. At least more about his physical movements. Though reading his letters you get a better sense of his character, and how he changed over the years of his ministry. In the 20 years prior (his earliest letter is at least 15 years after Jesus's death) to the destruction of Jerusalem he penned: 1 Thessalonians, Philippines, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans (if it's his), and Philemon. Colossians may or may not have been prior to AD70.

PS: Let's hope that some of the defenders of the pseudo-Paul will appear here and explain to us where they got the malevolent intentions of the pseudo-Paul they created ...from the book of Acts that Luke wrote? ...from the 14 letters that Paul wrote? And if not, from where? Details, please. Thank you.

Just as a final note before I need to get busy with my day, Jesus most definitely said to be careful of those to follow him and rely on the Comforter. And James (or rather the writer of his Epistle) was very wise in saying in chapter 3: 1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.
2 For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also.
Why do I follow James more readily than Paul? Because his letter supports Jesus's teachings of The Way.

I'll check back when I can, but I have a busy afternoon and evening ahead.
Namaste

 

[Spice]

Prove it with more than just words.

That's the only thing the defenders of pseudo-Paul use, like the defenders of any false doctrine, useless verbiage.

2 Peter is dated between 100 and 160 AD. At a minimum of 40 years after Peter's crucifixion.

 

[jimb]

The apostle Peter didn't write 1st Peter or 2nd Peter. They were probably written by his followers, but the true authorship is unknown. It was a common practice in those times for a person's disciples to write in their teacher's name, expressing his philosophy.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Prove it with more than just words.

That's the only thing the defenders of pseudo-Paul use, like the defenders of any false doctrine, useless verbiage.

Paul violated the directive in Matthew 24:23.

Peter would have never believed in Paul's claim to have met Jesus.

 

[Eli G]

@Spice so, are you one of the defenders of the pseudo-Paul? Those who think that Paul was a false Christian?

Firstly I would like to ask you if you are a Christian in the normal sense of the word. Do you belong or did you belong to a self-proclaimed "Christian" religion/community, where a group of people meet under the guidance of a pastor and recognize baptism, etc?

I already know that even an atheist can consider himself a "Christian" in some weird sense. I do know also that some Bahais identify themselves as "Christians" in some false identity ... Ironic, isn't it? how people often pose as some type of identity for the sole purpose of undermining that community and trying to subvert what it really is.

So, I am NOT asking you if you consider yourself a "Christian" in any of those senses. That may help me understand you point of view.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Paul is one of the few people who attempts to help us understand the Tanach that is bound into the cover. Without Paul, James, John and Peter the pages are much further away.

 

[jimb]

Paul violated the directive in Matthew 24:23.

Peter would have never believed in Paul's claim to have met Jesus.

Matthew 24:15-23, "“So when you see the abomination of desolation—spoken about by Daniel the prophet—standing in the holy place” (let the reader understand), “then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. The one on the roof must not come down to take anything out of his house, and the one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen. And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him."

It is poor exegesis to take a single verse out of context, which you have done. Reading the verse you chose in context, it is clearly speaking about a time of great peril and judgment. It has nothing to do with Paul's claim that he met Jesus.

Stating that Peter would never have believed Paul's claim to have met Jesus is pure speculation on your part, and has no Scriptural basis.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Matthew 24:15-23, "“So when you see the abomination of desolation—spoken about by Daniel the prophet—standing in the holy place” (let the reader understand), “then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. The one on the roof must not come down to take anything out of his house, and the one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen. And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him."

It is poor exegesis to take a single verse out of context, which you have done. Reading the verse you chose in context, it is clearly speaking about a time of great peril and judgment. It has nothing to do with Paul's claim that he met Jesus.

Stating that Peter would never have believed Paul's claim to have met Jesus is pure speculation on your part, and has no Scriptural basis.

Its exactly in context. The apocalypse hasn't occurred yet making it valid.

Paul claimed when he was warned not to believe.

The narrative seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Eli G]

So, we already have two of the defenders of the pseudo-Paul: @Spice and @Twilight Hue ... I don't remember reading the last of them identifying as a Christian, nor does it seem to me that he is, which it's Ok. Not because someone is not a Christian it means he/she can't give his/her own opinion about Biblical issues. The real point is not what you are, but where you get your version of the pseudo-Paul you defend. Do you take it from the internet? The only book that tells us about the real Paul is the Bible. I don't think that if someone has never read the Bible, they can have any idea who Paul really was.

Some people think that it's enough to read a few articles on the Internet, written by people who are very interested in giving a false idea about any biblical topic. In some social networks we already have censors that delete videos with fake information. Unfortunately, that cannot be done with much of the information disseminated on the Internet, especially false information related to biblical matters, which many talk about but few have actually verified.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Matthew 24:15-23, "“So when you see the abomination of desolation—spoken about by Daniel the prophet—standing in the holy place” (let the reader understand), “then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. The one on the roof must not come down to take anything out of his house, and the one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen. And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him."

It is poor exegesis to take a single verse out of context, which you have done. Reading the verse you chose in context, it is clearly speaking about a time of great peril and judgment. It has nothing to do with Paul's claim that he met Jesus.

Stating that Peter would never have believed Paul's claim to have met Jesus is pure speculation on your part, and has no Scriptural basis.

Its exactly in context. The apocalypse hasn't occurred yet making it valid.

Paul claimed when he was warned not to believe.

The narrative seems pretty obvious to me.

So, we already have two of the defenders of the pseudo-Paul: @Spice and @Twilight Hue ... I don't remember reading the last of them identifying as a Christian, nor does it seem to me that he is, which it's Ok. Not because someone is not a Christian it means he/she can't give his/her own opinion about Biblical issues. The real point is not what you are, but where you get your version of the pseudo-Paul you defend. Do you take it from the internet? The only book that tells us about the real Paul is the Bible. I don't think that if someone has never read the Bible, they can have any idea who Paul really was.

Some people think that it's enough to read a few articles on the Internet, written by people who are very interested in giving a false idea about any biblical topic. In some social networks we already have censors that delete videos with fake information. Unfortunately, that cannot be done with much of the information disseminated on the Internet, especially false information related to biblical matters, which many talk about but few have actually verified.

I'm an ex-Christian. I still want to call out the inconsistencies and contradictions that plague the Bible by using the very texts themselves and to point out its flaws in the narrative. The character Paul is certainly included here.

 

[Eli G]

...I'm an ex-Christian. ...

Thanks for telling us. Can you tell us more about this, if you don't mind?
I just need to understand what it's inside the head of those who defend the pseudo-Paul.
A real Christian would never say this kind of things about the real Paul.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I just need to understand what it's inside the head of those who defend the pseudo-Paul.
A real Christian would never say this kind of things about the real Paul.

Just for your info most of this began with a book by a talmudic scholar, and a lot of people read the book then took the ball much further. The book was titled The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. I read most of it, and it actually does not conclude Paul invents Christianity, despite the title. While the title is a teaser it is technically passive using no verbs. The book explores an imagined Paul who invents Christianity but does not conclude anything this way or that, leaving it to the reader. However this is perhaps something to look into if you want to find out what people are getting their ideas from. The author's name is Hyam Maccoby. Its been a long time since reading it, so I cannot tell you a lot about it, now.