Paul, a false prophet?

A great book that discusses this very issue is a book by Hyam Maccoby called, "The Problem of Paul."

Here are a few excerpts from the book (the Preface and the first two chapters actually.) http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm

It's a tough book to find, it's not really in any libraries but I purchased a copy a few years back and read it. It was extremely eye-opening about the historical events between the Romans, the Jews, Jesus, and the Pharisees. Maccoby even speculates Jesus was actually a Pharisee himself based on everything he says within the Gospels. Although Paul makes quite an effort to demonize the Jews and make his new religion, Christianity, more appealing to the Romans of that time. It's a great read if anyone is interested.

 

The character of Paul as a person must have been quite vile. He established the tradition that women's worth is not in their works but in their child bearing. Then he, a former womanizer himself, has the balls to start telling people to avoid sex and to even avoid marriage. It amazes me how this playa of a conman made it into the official Bible book assembly of Emperor Justinian. (And from there into every printed Bible.)

 

Paul reminds me of an ancient version of the Mormon's Joseph Smith. In fact they are similar in that they both had visions/met with messenger's of God and said this religion (Christianity) is wrong the way it is and they have been told to fix it. And they went along and did just that.

 

Paul was a womanizer? Source?

So how many mistresses did he have? How many children? Surely you can back up your claims.

 

This is amazing. I begin to think that this leads to the psychology of cult leaders/founders, whether it is something about them or something about the people that decide to listen to them.

 

I don't know if Paul was a womanizer but he certainly was no fan of women. To him women were second class citizens and needed to know and stay in their place.

1 Corinthians 14:34f.,

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

1 Timothy 2:11-15,

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a 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. Notwithstanding she shall be saved with childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity, and holiness with sobriety.”

 

Paul threw away a promising career as Pharisee to promote a religion he once deemed heretical. Then he inexplicably converted to that same religion and lived a life of hardship and persecution, ultimately leading his his death.

Then we have Joseph Smith. He was a power hungry individual who tried to create a new religion that he was the center of. He declared himself a mayor amongst his followers and commander of a large militia engaging in wars with others abroad. Smith even ran for the Presidency of the United States.

If you ask me, Smith reflects the life of Mohammad. Like Mohammad, Smith claims to have had divine reveleation from the angel Morion and then had a book written about all the "corrections" needed in the holy scriptures.

Conversely, Paul simply had a vision to convert and wrote letters to the church's at that time. He never sought a life of political power or warfare like Mohammad or Smith and forsake all worldy wealth and power for his beliefs.

 

Paul was not a Pharisee. He never was. That was an embellishment of him by himself and of the Pauline church. His entire life story as written by him and his followers is highly questionable. From what it sounds like he was more associated with the Sadducees than the Pharisees.

quote continued > http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm

Oh? And Paul wasn't interested in asserting himself as a higher individual by claiming to be a Pharisee?

And if you ask me Paul's, Smith's and Mohammad's stories all sound very similar to me. And the Pauline Church made loads of changes in the Gospels. In fact he didn't get along with the original early Christian church and the original Apostles. But he later writes that everything turned out all fine and dandy in the end even though if you read their writings to one another that was clearly not the case.

Although he did not actively pursue violence in his lifetime, I believe Paul's misinterpretations and warping of the Christian religion caused great harm to future generations after the fact.

 

You obviously know very little about someone you proport to know alot about. By Pauls own admission he persecuted and helped kill early Christians. Then he had the conversion and never returned to such behavior.

 

You fail to look at the context these things were written as well as the context to his overall work. For example, in Galations 3:28 Paul says that in Christ, there is neither male nor female. In other words, we are all equal in the eyes of God and in terms of our eternal state. However, in the present world he was writing these scriptures you cited they were living in a male dominated society with cultural expectations.

Comparing Paul's radical teachings about women in term of spiritual equality, there is no equal to him at this time.

 

i dunno...

the prophecy is that jesus is supposed to be from the lineage of david and in matt 1, the whole chain from david to joseph is spelled out, but then joseph supposedly didnt touch mary, so where's the lineage?

genetically or of lineage

how has all of THAT been overlooked for so long?

 

how about today; in san fran, you cant tell the difference

i actually have seen 6 inch pumps in size 12 men

hang on; anyone can read, his, jesus, moses, muhammad, confucius, einstein and even my sayings now

'we' are better than they were in them days. Knowledge has evolved well beyond them days


heck, if i had a bic lighter and walked around in the first century, they would have been calling me god.

 

We are better today than back then? Have you actually taken a look at women's plight in Islam today? In fact, nowhere is St. Paul even close to the misyogynistic state of Mohammad. As for Mohammads sexual appetite, he was known to have had about 22 sexual partners, including Aesha who was only about 9 years old. According to the Hadith, when she shared his bed she was still playing with her dolls.

Here is a taste of his theology regarding women.

Quran 4:5 If any of you women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of 4 witnesses form amongst them; if they testify, confine them to their house until their death.

Tabari IX:113 "Allah permits you to shut women in seperate rooms and to beat them. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Quran.

Tobari 1:280 "Allah said, It is my obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made the tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent. Because Allah affected Eve, all women will menstrate and will be stupid."

Bukhari: V1B22N28 "The prophet said: I was shown hell fire and the majority of its dwellings were women who were disbelievers or ungrateful. When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, "All the favors done for them by their husbands."

Mohammad lived nearly half a century later than Paul, yet it seems he came from the stone age. In fact, just look at how modern day Muslims treat their women today. It's not much better.

 

can you read?

back thn if you were not royalty, you couldnt even read

mujammad was illiterate

sure, we had a rosie rivitor from ww2 but i dont know how many were believing folk of islame; that's kind of personal

you gotta a point.

I couldnt be so lucky in today's world.

now we got aids doing it

or perhaps wait until OJ gets out and have him kill her for ya

stop it, as that stuff is giving me a chubby

so god IS nature.

i knew it, i tell everyone that, and see, thats the proof

oh my god, so that is why some put on make up while driving a 3ooolb bullet on the freeway?

but we got midol in our time. We have the technology, we can make bigger (bbobies) faster, (viagra) and stronger (a divorce lawyer)

And dont forget, 'we' can now do tha god thing and a women can have a baby and not a single man touch her (test tube babies)

it's a miracle

and a jackrabbit

 

Jesus may well have said everything as quoted. Unfortunately Paul did not ever meet Jesus.

Jesus never said anything about women being second class citizens in the Church. Why does Paul ?

Ministers that attend a proper seminary's, one where you go for 7 -8 years and learn Latin, Hebrew and Greek, learn that the Bible has been changed over the years.

If ministers do not believe the whole Bible is the word of God .. then why would all Christians ?

 

.

I think the real contradiction here is from Jesus Sermon on the Mount.

Matt 5:19 20

Perhaps Paul had never heard of this Sermon since he never knew Jesus and Matt was written decades after Pauls writing.

 

Are you sure? What evidence do you have that will support that assertion?

Was every word that Jesus spoke during his ministry recorded? No? Not sure? Then why do you suggest what you think Jesus never said? Perhaps Paul heard Jesus say something to that effect.

Yes! Ministers spend 7 - 8 years in seminary to learn all those things that you speak about. OOOOPS you left one out... Political Theology.

Are you speaking about ALL Ministers, or just the ones that are your favorites?

 

And was Jesus always consistent?

He said things to the effect that you have been told till now to hate your enemies, but I tell you to love them. He said you must first serve, to lead. He said it is more blessed to give than receive etc. On the surface, these appear to be all contridictions do they not?

Christ said that the beginning and the end of the law was love. He pointed this out when he supposidly broke the Sabbath by healing someone on the Sabbath. It's not about the law, its about loving your fellow man and God. That is why there is a law.

Of course, Paul nailed it on the head as well in 1 Corinthians 13 when he said that even though there are those with spritiual gifts and those who are talented in preaching, it is lacking and will pass away. We see through a glass darkly but one day we will see God in his completeness. Everything will pass away except one things which is love. All faith, all spritual gifts, in fact, everything we see now will pass away except love. Therefore, if I am able to move mountains with my faith but do not have love I am nothing. If I have all knowledge and know everything about everything but don't have love I am simply nothing at all.

So compare this with other teachings like that of Mohammad. They are, in fact, alien to such thinking.

 

There is no evidence that he did .. and surely he would have said something if he had given who Paul was.

Hmmm .. you have a point. Perhaps none of what Jesus said during his ministry was recorded and so the entire OT is based on hearsay and therefor not that reliable.

Interesting point !

Any Minister that has attended a reputable Seminary.

The ones that attend the Pentacostal and fundamentalist courses, where they make up stuff as they go along and focus on advanced mind control techniques I do not include as reputable.

 

What part of it do you find to be contradicting ?

The problem is that you are interpreting it to mean the so many hundreds of laws of moses, such as not eating pork,etc.... But those aren't the commands that Christ was talking about.

i.e Jesus commanded some perspective about these laws,yes ?

 

This is not Jesus being inconsistent. There is no inconsistency here within the teachings of Jesus.

I do not think it was in the Laws of the OT to hate your enemies, but even if it was this would be an inconsistency with the OT.

I do grant that there are many contradictions between the OT and the NT.

This is one example of a contradiction .. there are many others. Teaching about Divorce, Stoning adulterers .. and so on.

It does not seem that Jesus and the God of the OT are the same person.

I do not see how these words by Paul related to or explain any of the contradictions or inconsistencies of Jesus.

Paul borrows from Ecclesiastes and adds a comment about love and meanders on about spiritual gifts which he pretty much introduced into Christianity as far as I can tell.

Paul never met Jesus and his writings do not come until at least 3 or 4 decades after Christs death. His extensive writing has almost no details about the life of Jesus so it does not seem he knew too much about the man.

You would think that someone who was so ardent a follower of Christ would have recorded more about the life and times of his Messiah.

I know that some of the works attributed to Paul were not actually written by Paul so this is understandable for these.

It is strange that Paul did not seem to know much about Jesus or have much of a connection to any of the deciples.

 

The main contradiction here is not in law .. but on what basis one is saved.

According to Paul one is saved by through faith.
According to Jesus one is saved based on deeds/works

 

Perhaps, but if that gives people hope when they are in dire straits, or brings together a community, then this sounds fine to me. On the other hand, it could be as accurate (although translated through the years) as any other historical record.

There is, at least, varying amounts of evidence that Jesus was around in that time, and touched many people (disciples and enemies). Whether he was just a man, or if he could perform miracles... well that could be very difficult to prove. A lot of what is in the bible has been verified (i.e. places he went etc).

Ultimately FAITH is required to believe in God, and all that he/she/it stands for. Faith should be required when beleiving in the book too I guess.

 

interesting.


how about:

one is saved by comprehending what their deeds/works actually contribute to existence....

????

ie... you are born, unaware of what you are capable of, then to learn that and it be absolute of truth, you are 'born again'

So to comprehend exactly what 'good and bad' are that is pure to existence and the whole of nature (god), then you be saved!

good: support life to continue (you give of your energy (light-life) for other lives to live; you live in that contribution to existence beyond your time of choice

bad: loss to the common (you take, lie, cheat, etc.... for your own selfish cause, and that input will eventually fade to extinction)


good, lives
bad, goes extinct eventually


the overall judge is time (nature-god itself)

basic

 

I see no contradiction here Gifedone.

Faith in Christ (grace and truth) turns into righteousness.