Was the apostle Paul a wolf in sheep's clothing?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Following that logic you must believe every book that expanded on the bible since as well. So you need to be Mormon, Islamic and Christian at the same time for example. After all God's word can never be corrupted.

The Book of Mormon isn't an expansion so much as it is a plagiarized wild, and I mean very wild, hack job.

a reply to: Logarock

And the Islamic Faith?

a reply to: Puppylove


It largely has its own foundation and yes in my opinion it also hacks when it drags in anything "christian".

At one time in my life, I would have died for my christian faith. I would have let my children die for my christian faith. But, then I began to pray for the truth. That is when I discovered that what I believed in, was what Paul taught, not what Jesus taught.

I have had to go through a huge amount of reevaluation. Yes, it hurt! The safety of hanging on to the hem of Jesus garments through Pauls teachings was my HOPE of salvation. But, then the dead sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts became available. As well as the numerous historic documents. Then I found out that the bible as we know it, was adulterated before the 3rd century. Take the book of Mark, the last chapter was added a couple of hundred years after Jesus died. Look at that last chapter and if you have eyes to see and ears to hear, you will see that a lot of what we believe about the resurrection was an add on by the "Church".

Im not discounting or debating if Paul had a vision, he may have, but I have had to come to terms with the FACTS. He interpreted his vision by what he had been taught. He was taught in Tarsus. Tarsus was a roman school and taught the ancient Greek Mythology.

The bottom line for me, is that Jesus was a Jew that practiced Judaism. He kept the Sabbath, Hanukkah, and observed all the Jewish Feasts. If He believed these things should be done away with, He would have stopped practicing the laws of the Old Testament. But the fact is He didnt. He practiced Judaism and died for it. We practice Pauls teachings.
Paul merged what he was taught in Tarsus and slapped Jesus name on it. The "church" even gave Jesus the same birthday as Mithras. There are over 180 similarities between Jesus and Mithras.

I do understand why the average Christian is lulled into believing these lies. It shatters everything you believe to be true. But, that is no excuse from discovering the truth for yourself. When you stand before God, He is going to tell you "get away from me, I never knew you. This is serious stuff.

Pauls teachings can not hold water, when compared to the teachings of Jesus. Look into ancient Greek Mythology and discover for yourself that the image we have of Jesus, has been corrupted by these ancient teachings and beliefs.

God allowed this corrupted version of His word, to weed out the true seekers. Dont give your power to a corrupt religion. Dont use the Bible as a stumbling block or a crutch.

Dont waste your life on a lie. The only reason the Bible has become the only source material to discover the Truth, is because the "Church" killed, everyone who had a different view, and burned every book that disagreed with them. Our ancestors were bullied into believing this crap.

All the Abrahamic traditions, are on the cusp of making Armageddon a reality. If the "Church" doesnt wake up, and soon. it will be too late. Even the elect would be deceived. Dont let Pauls teachings kill you.

I pray you have ears to hear and eyes to see the truth. If you want to believe in Pagan Christianity, that is your right and privilege. But, take a real look at Paul. Take a real look at the origins of Christmas, and Easter. Take a real look at the Sabbath, and why and who changed it to Sunday instead of Saturday. You can stay comfortable where you are if you want, but those of us who have discovered the truth about Paul have a responsibility to tell you that it is all lies.

originally posted by: misskat1

Im not discounting or debating if Paul had a vision, he may have, but I have had to come to terms with the FACTS. He interpreted his vision by what he had been taught. He was taught in Tarsus. Tarsus was a roman school and taught the ancient Greek Mythology.

Saul of Tarsus (Apostle of the Heathen) was a Pharisee of the highest order. He said, “I studied under Gamaliel and was thoroughly trained in the law of our ancestors.” It was this school that defined him (not some "Greek Mythology" school as you say). Yes, the stoic ideas of God had a huge influence on how Christianity developed over the centuries, but we can't lay the blame for this on a Pharisee who was once a disciple of Gamaliel. Paul was wrong about many things, and like all of us, he was a product of his environment.

The bottom line for me is the Bible is full of lies.
On this point, you and I would agree.

The bottom line for me, is that Jesus was a Jew that practiced Judaism. He kept the Sabbath, Hanukkah, and observed all the Jewish Feasts. If He believed these things should be done away with, He would have stopped practicing the laws of the Old Testament. But the fact is He didnt. He practiced Judaism and died for it. We practice Pauls teachings.

You make a good point: “If He [JESUS] believed these things should be done away with, He would have stopped practicing the laws….. He practiced Judaism and died for it.” That is not what we’ve been told, but as you point out, we need to question what we’ve been told.

Paul says Jesus died to replace the Old Covenant with the New (where the Law of Moses in null and void).. And Paul wasn’t the only one saying this… read Hebrews… this theology was quick to emerge (suggesting it was already thought out before Jesus died). So we have this early theology where Jesus died for the sin of the whole world, and Covenant of Moses is replaced with an eternal Covenant in Jesus blood for all who believe.

The problem of course is that those closed to Jesus didn’t believe or teach this. James, Peter and the rest of the leaders at the founding church/ecclesia in Jerusalem still upheld the Law of Moses. These men who walk with Jesus got it wrong… according to Paul.

So then, who ought we to believe?

If you are saying that when James "the Righteous" became High Priest of Israel (after jesus, his brother, died), that James had it right to follow and keep the Old Covenant Laws of Moses..... then I have two questions for you: 1) do you really believe that is what God wanted legalism for His People? 2), do you think it applies to us today who are not even Jewish?

a reply to: Akragon

I don't consider youtube videos a source of anything aside from entertainment for the most part...

Your loss is another persons gain.

Plus... You were talking about what happened to Paul... the guy in your video restored the books of the bible from Hebrew versions of them... that doesn't explain what happen to paul because his fate isn't recorded in the bible... it comes from external sources well after he lived... and Ignatius is the earliest source as far as I know... which was 50+ years after Paul disappeared... he was reported to have been beheaded, which I don't believe...

Wrong again as usual. Paul was born CE 5 and was released 2nd time from Roman prison in CE 64 at the age of 59. no more is heard of him till the Sonnini Manuscript emerged with the 29th chapter of Acts . Very controversial but now being accepted by many scholars. Perhaps not the internet of course. The internet is whatever you want it to be. Now if the time line is accurate then it is highly unlikely that Paul lived another 50 + years as you have postulated. Your understanding would place Paul at least 109 years old and that i simply do not buy.

and as far as Paul meeting Jesus is concerned... theres not a shred of evidence showing Paul ever met, or even saw Jesus... IF he did see him at the very least... he would have mentioned it without a doubt...

As usual your hate overrides reasoning. Simply because a mention is not made is of no consequence whatsoever. One example is that of the Apostle Bartholomew. Bartholomew is mentioned only once by Matthew, once by Mark, once by Luke and not even mentioned by John. By your reasoning Bartholomew does not even exist according to John and the other three must be liars. That is what hate does to the mind. Yet Paul is loved as a brother and mentioned 143 times by five of the seven Apostles who we have letters.

And lastly you are wrong again. Paul was in the Sanhedrin court as a young rabbi with his master Nasi Gamaliel. He heard and saw the entire proceedings as Jesus was vindicated.

You and Paul bashers can have last word in this matter. Thanks for input.

a reply to: Seede

Wrong again as usual. Paul was born CE 5 and was released 2nd time from Roman prison in CE 64 at the age of 59. no more is heard of him till the Sonnini Manuscript emerged with the 29th chapter of Acts . Very controversial but now being accepted by many scholars.

Who are these "many Scholars" you speak of?

Perhaps not the internet of course. The internet is whatever you want it to be.

Of course...

Now if the time line is accurate then it is highly unlikely that Paul lived another 50 + years as you have postulated. Your understanding would place Paul at least 109 years old and that i simply do not buy.

I said nothing of the sort... Though it is quite the normal thing for a Christian to read into what someone says and make up their own version of it...

As usual your hate overrides reasoning. Simply because a mention is not made is of no consequence whatsoever. One example is that of the Apostle Bartholomew. Bartholomew is mentioned only once by Matthew, once by Mark, once by Luke and not even mentioned by John. By your reasoning Bartholomew does not even exist according to John and the other three must be liars.

No that is your own faulty logic... or lack there of...

That is what hate does to the mind. Yet Paul is loved as a brother and mentioned 143 times by five of the seven Apostles who we have letters.

Just because someone is mentioned does not make their teaching accurate... or even correct...

2 peter is the only place where Paul's letters get the OK... and its widely regarded as a forgery...

And I don't hate anyone... I just dislike Pauls writing... and I don't trust it... assumptions never get a person anywhere as you can clearly see...

And lastly you are wrong again. Paul was in the Sanhedrin court as a young rabbi with his master Nasi Gamaliel. He heard and saw the entire proceedings as Jesus was vindicated.

Speculation... and theres no evidence of such things ever happening...

He would have written about it if he had even seen Jesus once in his life... he didn't... and speculation means nothing

You and Paul bashers can have last word in this matter. Thanks for input.

a reply to: wasaka

The bottom line for me is the Bible is full of lies. On this point, you and I would agree.

Full of lies? Name me some would you? Just a few of the big ones of course.

You make a good point: “If He [JESUS] believed these things should be done away with, He would have stopped practicing the laws….. He practiced Judaism and died for it.” That is not what we’ve been told, but as you point out, we need to question what we’ve been told.

Jesus has never postulated doing away with the Torah. He did not practice rabbinic Judaism. Jesus brought forth the doctrine of His Father. Not rabbinic Judaism.

Paul says Jesus died to replace the Old Covenant with the New (where the Law of Moses in null and void).. And Paul wasn’t the only one saying this… read Hebrews… this theology was quick to emerge (suggesting it was already thought out before Jesus died). So we have this early theology where Jesus died for the sin of the whole world, and Covenant of Moses is replaced with an eternal Covenant in Jesus blood for all who believe.

Paul did not say that the new covenant of Christ Jesus did away with the laws of Torah. Jesus taught all of the law in His ministry but showed mercy and forgiveness in the civil punishments of broken laws. Murder is still murder and has never been revoked by Jesus the same as all of the Torah but the civil punishments of men vary at their own discretion. Jesus died for all people who will accept His doctrine but He did not die for continuation of sin from those who do not accept His doctrine. In other words it is not a blanket of security to those who disregard His doctrine.

The problem of course is that those closed to Jesus didn’t believe or teach this. James, Peter and the rest of the leaders at the founding church/ecclesia in Jerusalem still upheld the Law of Moses. These men who walk with Jesus got it wrong… according to Paul.

No, they did not practice rabbinic Judaism. They upheld Torah but not necessarily the ordinances of Torah. Example is that Jesus was the sacrifice for mankind and the ordinance of animal sacrifice was not instituted. The Temple money changers and the need for the brazen alter was then dismissed as no longer valid, but it did not change the Torah law. Paul and the synagogue of James no longer recognized the Jerusalem temple as the center of Torah. The new temple of Jesus through the Apostles was a self governing new covenant with James as the Nasi (High Priest).

The entire reason for sacrifice was to erase sin. The blood covenant of Moses was to cover the sins of the nation or as they believed, it was to cloud sin from the eyes of God. All covenants with God and man were blood covenants and the covenant with God through Christ was also a blood covenant. Paul never changed a word of this doctrine.

If you are saying that when James "the Righteous" became High Priest of Israel (after jesus, his brother, died), that James had it right to follow and keep the Old Covenant Laws of Moses..... then I have two questions for you: 1) do you really believe that is what God wanted legalism for His People? 2), do you think it applies to us today who are not even Jewish?

But James did not become high priest of Israel. James became high priest of the first Christian synagogue only. The rabbinic Judaic authority was still the Jerusalem Temple authority of Israel. Christianity was but a sect of the Judaic structure. Now as far as old law, I think you have a misconception as to what Torah actually is. Jesus taught Torah but Jesus also taught forgiveness whereas the ordinances were harsh and unforgiving. Everyone of the Torah laws were taught by Christ Jesus but also were not judged by Jesus. Under Jesus a murderer could repent and receive punishment and yet be forgiven but under the civil laws of Moses that man would be stoned without any forgiveness even though he repented. In both instances the man was guilty but the punishment differed. Talk about legalism, the entire world is governed by legalism. It is not just a Jewish thing.

a reply to: Seede

Don't you mean Paul's doctrine? Jesus' doctrine was to love others and do good to them, Paul's was to have faith in Jesus' sacrifice. One requires works (love) the other does not (faith).

Did you read the OP? It lays out clearly that Paul's teachings have no foundation. Paul says to the one who does not work but has faith, their faith is credited as righteousness, a.k.a. you don't have to do good, in fact it is not possible to do good according to Paul. According to Jesus, the one who does not put his words into practice (do good and treat others as you would want to be treated) is like a man who builds a house without a foundation.

It's laid out very clearly in the OP, if you can't see it then your preconceived notions are getting in the way.

a reply to: wasaka

I wish I had the answers to your questions, but honestly, I am still sorting out what to believe. I think (which doesnt matter really) that most of the laws are there to protect us from our own stupid choices. But, should a 2,000 year old religion dictate what is true for today? I just dont know.
I just know that in my own "experiance" there is a wonderful loving energy or spirit that I do believe in. What are the rules and regs to make it happy? I dont know. Im not sure there are any rules or regs. But, I do know that we all have to "work out our own salvation in fear and trembling"
I think that my religious programming still influences how I interpret the "Holy Spirit". Im not sure I know the "right" questions to ask. But, I know that everyone has a responsibility to ask.

a reply to: Logarock

My point is, no matter where you draw the line on whether it's the word of God or not, it's an arbitrary line. You not God decide when you stop believing the word is God's word. Be you Jewish and stop before Christianity or be you Islamic and continue past Christianity. You decided the the bible, the whole bible was the word of God and nothing written after it. You decided to believe that all the other writings not included in the bible as decided by others, was not the word of God, you choose to trust their decisions as inspired by God. Ultimately at some point, you decide who that came before you to put faith in as knowing the true word of God, and similarly decide who is not.

They and you drawing this arbitrary line does not make it true. God may be infallible if He exists, but you are not. God created man as fallible, He gave man free will to decide for themselves where to place their faith. You choose the Bible, you choose where you draw the line, but that is on you, not God. So when you draw that line, recognize that it's your choice and faith and not God's infallible word.

You believe this is God's word, and that's fine, others think differently. God according to your faith made that possible. Man is fallible, God's word is not, why are you so certain you or those you trust are right in deciding who's words are truly God's?

When you have faith in the Bible, it is not God you have faith in, it is everyone who told you these are His words, and your own ability to decide where to find what God expects from you. It is faith in yourself, not God. So claiming the Book is infallible as is because God would not allow His word to be corrupted, you must first be placing faith that these words are His and faith you know better than anyone who believes these are not.

I recognize that's what faith is, but saying God's word is incorruptible is clearly a ludicrous thing to say, as clearly no one can agree on what is His words or what they really mean. Sit any two Christians together and no two will agree 100% on the interpretation of the Bible. If God's word is infallible we are not, and therefor neither are our perceptions of His word.

a reply to: Puppylove

Excellent explanation. Thank you.

I copied your post to reread and to share, if you don't mind.

a reply to: Tusks

Not a problem.

a reply to: Puppylove

Nice post and very well put! That's something I've known for a while but could never put it so eloquently. You hit the nail on the head.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Romans 7 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

I do not know where you got this Romans 7: 14-20. Have checked twelve of the most common bibles an could not find it. The understanding that you get from this is not the understanding I get from the Eth Cepher. The following is the my understanding.

Cepher Romaiym (Romans) 7th chapter
(14) For we know the Torah is of the Rauch: but I am carnal, trafficked by sin. (15) For that
which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. (16) If then I
do that which I would not, I consent unto the Torah that it is good. (17) Now then It is no more I
that do it, but sin sin that dwells in me. (18) For I know that in me (that is my flesh,) dwells no
good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. (19)
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. (20) Now if I do
that I would not, it is no more I that do It but sin that dwells in me

As you can see we would never be on the same page as your source is entirely foreign to the Eth Cepher. It would be senseless to argue over the translators and would accomplish nothing.

The first thought is that Paul is not teaching anyone here in this but is instead revealing himself as a scoundrel as all men are. If you are under the assumption that being an Apostle or disciple is a badge of perfection then you have not the faintest idea of life.

Not one created person has ever been free of sin and that includes you and me and all the stone throwers out there who are so righteous as to judge a man who had the Holy Spirit and gifts of the Spirit. 1st John 3 is taken entirely out of context and must be read in connective thought which you did nothing of the sort.

a reply to: Seede

All you have to do is search "Romans 7:14-20" and it will be pretty much every link on the first page and even further pages.

Romans 7:14-20

It's in pretty much every translation as far as I'm aware of. If you want to argue semantics, then you are arguing the bible because that's pretty much all it is. It's a tool used to cause debate of semantics, "what word means what, this word doesn't mean that but this, that's not the original meaning", etc.

By the way, the translation you gave says the same exact thing that mine did except with different words in different orders. He says he is not spiritual but carnal and still says he does not do the good he wants to do because sin is in him. He also still says that it is not he who does evil but the sin within him.

No personal responsibility, a free ticket to sin as much as you want because "it's not you who does it".

If what he says is true, his house is built without a foundation according to Jesus. If Paul taught the same thing as Jesus does that mean Jesus' house had no foundation as well?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Romans 7:14-20

It's in pretty much every translation as far as I'm aware of. If you want to argue semantics, then you are arguing the bible because that's pretty much all it is. It's a tool used to cause debate of semantics, "what word means what, this word doesn't mean that but this, that's not the original meaning", etc.

The Eth Cepher as well as the other bibles I have checked are not translated in the same translation as you have introduced and no I do not want to go into manuscripts debate.

Being spiritual and being of the Spirit (Torah) are two entirely different aspects of understanding. You may be spiritual in many respects of different religions and no religion at all but Cepher has nailed it down to only one and that is Torah of the God of Abram.

Paul is not teaching anyone in this instance. He is simply expounding the fact that he is a sinner against Torah. Torah being of God. He has said that he has two factions of control which are spirit and flesh and that spirit and flesh are at odds with each other. Does not Jesus teach this very same?

Mat_26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Exactly what Paul has said of himself and applies to every person on this earth. You and I are no different than what Paul has written. Paul has never taught that he is not responsible for his sin as you have twisted the meaning.

(20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do It but sin that dwells in me.

In understanding what Paul has said is that his flesh is not doing what his spirit tells him to do. His flesh is sinning and yet his spirit knows that what his flesh is doing is against God. He has lost control of his flesh and it is not the spirit that is at fault but the sin that dwells in the flesh. He has never suggested that it's not my fault that I sin. That is absolutely ridiculous and not even in the ball park. What he said in verse 20 is that it is not my spirit that sins but that it is sin in my flesh that sins against my spirit.

Now how can sin dwell in the flesh without the permission of the spirit? Through a Satan of course. In fact there are many instances of a person being possessed by evil spirits as well as tempted by evil spirits or Satan's. Romans was the first known letter from Paul and was written shortly after his conversion. Knowing this it can be somewhat assumed that Paul was a baby in Christ Jesus and may still have not only his spiritual but his physical needs to overcome.

Nevertheless, this does not conflict with Jesus at all.

John_3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.







(14) For we know the Torah is of the Rauch: but I am carnal, trafficked by sin.
(14) We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.



By the way, the translation you gave says the same exact thing that mine did except with different words in different orders. He says he is not spiritual but carnal and still says he does not do the good he wants to do because sin is in him. He also still says that it is not he who does evil but the sin within him.

No personal responsibility, a free ticket to sin as much as you want because "it's not you who does it".

If what he says is true, his house is built without a foundation according to Jesus. If Paul taught the same thing as Jesus does that mean Jesus' house had no foundation as well?

a reply to: Seede

Yet Paul admits to giving into temptation every day. If Jesus tells us to not give into temptation then why does Paul admit to doing it? Wouldn't that mean he does not practice what Jesus taught and thus his teachings have no foundation?

"Keep my commandments to enter life", Paul admits to not keeping Jesus' commandments. He says he keeps doing evil, Jesus says not to do evil. It's clear as day, you just refuse to see it for fear of being sent to hell for questioning "God's (Paul's) word".

a reply to: Seede

If what he says is true, his house is built without a foundation according to Jesus. If Paul taught the same thing as Jesus does that mean Jesus' house had no foundation as well?

Sorry about that post. Had a power glitch here and everything went crazy.

No that is not what Jesus was teaching. Whenever Jesus taught, He taught the perfect will of the Father and what the Father would want from people. As was said before Paul was not teaching anyone. Paul was telling the Romans what he was. Not what they should do. In other words I am just the same as you are.

Matthew_12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Jesus would not teach that if you sin you are never to enter the kingdom of God. If that was the case then not one person in creation would ever be in the kingdom of God. Just as people judge Paul then they also will be judged. Paul was a man in turmoil just as you and I are this very day. Jesus teaches that your flesh must be overcome and put in subjection to the spirit. Once you are aware of this and you then go ahead and sin then your house is on shaky ground.

Paul is very aware of this and that is his message to the Romans. Paul was concerned that what he wanted he could not master at that time. The very same lesson is connected when Paul asked Jesus to heal his infirmity and Jesus refused him three times. Why did Jesus refuse him? Because if Jesus had healed him then Paul would go right back to the old Saul again. Proving exactly what Paul was saying to the Romans. What was the infirmity? It is not told but it was from Satan. I have a bad habit of sinning is the whole ball of wax. I wonder how many people out there would have the guts to admit the same thing?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yet Paul admits to giving into temptation every day. If Jesus tells us to not give into temptation then why does Paul admit to doing it? Wouldn't that mean he does not practice what Jesus taught and thus his teachings have no foundation?

As I said before, There is a perfect will of God and a permissive will of God. No man is perfect and all men sin every day of their life. Jesus teaches from the perfect will of His Father because He is of the Father. Being of the Father He cannot teach any other than the perfect will. If He taught the permissive will of the Father then He would be teaching permission to sin. The permissive will of the father is that His knowing that all men continually sin gave His Son the power to erase that sin or retain that sin.

I agree that Paul sinned continually and Paul admits this same thing but Jesus is not going to teach that it is alright. Why? Because while in the very act of a sin that person is not of God. It cannot be any other way. While in any act against the perfect will of God that act and that person is not of God. If this theology is true then God can not associate Himself with sin in any manner or shape or form. This is called rightfully dividing the words of truth.

No! Paul did not practice what Jesus taught and no man practices what Jesus has taught. If all so called Christians practiced what Jesus is said to have taught then we would have one Jesus religion and not the mess we have today. No man practices the perfect will of the Father God and no man has ever practiced the perfect will of God. That is an impossible task and exactly what Paul said.