So, I was nerding up some info on Paul this morning and came across a worksheet for some college class on Paul that i thought would be a good exercise for Christians or anyone interested ( I wonder where Abuzola is  ). I'll post a link to it at the end. . . I want small attention first. 

I think most will agree that Paul was the founder of Christianity, at least, as far as the "Gentile' world goes. The New Testament contains several letters either written by Paul, or claiming to have been written by Paul. We know more about Paul that we know about even Jesus, since we have more direct information about him that we can sort through. But Paul's message was about Jesus, and there is reason to believe he knew very little about this Jesus's life.

As we all know Paul's letters are the earliest sources we have. They predate even the earliest of the gospels by, maybe, decades, and careful examination of his letters can give us glimpses into what was happening early in the development of Christianity. I will list a few interesting things that maybe we can discuss. Hopefully some have some light they can shed on this.

If Paul was our only source for info on Jesus. .

1) We would not have the identity of Jesus's mother
2) We would not be aware that Jesus was from Galilee
3) We would not know that Jesus was baptized
4) We would not know that Jesus taught in Parables
5) We would not know that Jesus performed miracles
6) We would not know that Jesus ate with sinners
7) We would not know that Jesus confronted some Pharisees
8 ) We would not know that Jesus entered Jerusalem and overturned tables in the temple (This is a big deal, as it was, allegedly, during passover and would have been all over the "News"  . Paul's silence on this is kinda odd, IMHO)

^^ All the above, and their implications, are debatable. That is the point of this exercise.

Questions to ponder:

- How much did Paul know about the historical Jesus?
- Where did he learn it?
- Were the readers of Paul's letters already familiar with Jesus' teachings, leaving Paul with little reason to include them?
- Why does Paul not buttress his arguments with appeals to Jesus' teachings.
- Was Paul too focused on the cross and resurrection?

The link below is to a pdf file that contains all the info I just typed out, and also a table that lists passages that contain parallels and differences between Paul and the synoptics on different issues (If u have trouble opening it please let me know, and I'll try to copy the info and post it here). Basically there are some similarities and some glaring contradictions, and maybe we can sort through them and see what they can teach us. I can't really take part cause I'm workin 24/7 pretty much but I just think it may be fun. 

http://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Articles/RS10Worksheet52006.pdf

Noetic17, Davidylan, Mazaje, Deep Sight, Pastor AIO, Jeseoul, MyJoe, Toba, Oladegbu, Toneyb, Tpiah, etc etc. efribody o. Oya . . .let's go there, please 

Thank u

paul's messages were more about salvation,faith and belief than about jesus so we don't learn about jesus from the books of paul which were mostly instructions and encouragement letters to the churches.

karo93:

paul's messages were more about salvation,faith and belief than about jesus so we don't learn about jesus from the books of paul which were mostly instructions and encouragement letters to the churches.

If the life of Jesus was not important, why would his death be? Why should anyone just believe that belief and faith in some crucified individual would save them, if there was no info about his life. How would that be different from all the other myths of gods/goddesses that were floating around?

St. Paul. . . incredible fanatic. . . . incredible misogynist. . .

First off, this is my first Krayola thread! Will read and comment.  

Paul is one very strange person. . .The letters of Paul were allegedly written by him to various other early "Christian" communities, though the term Christian is not found in any of the works of Paul which I personally find to be very strange. Is Paul truly the founder of christianity as you said? I saw Bart Erhman the other day on TV saying that some editing of Paul's letters took place as well, some thing which he says has happened with all of the works of the bible. . . . . He also said that it is actually more difficult to detect changes that were made to the letters of Paul than it is to detect changes that were made to the Gospels because there are fewer copies of the letters of Paul.

As for the letter's that were alleged to be written by Paul and the gospels, there are so many differences in them, Paul never says anything about the life of Jesus at all, all he said was that Jesus was born of a woman no mention of virgin birth even when his letters were to the gentiles who might have not heard about the Jesus he was talking about, he does not talk much about the events in the life of Jesus, he does not mention any of his miracles but speaks of Jesus as somebody who lived very long ago etc. . . .Who ever he was he was just a person that wanted to begin his own movement for reason's best known to him. . .Seized the early Jesus movement and created his own cult out of it, from there his works were also seized on by the roman catholic church and they propagated it from then on. . . .

@ mazaje . . If u compare those passages u may notice that there are some similarities between Paul's teachings and those attributed to Jesus.  On divorce, "compensation", and to some extent the Last Supper. I'm not sure if any of those passages are controversial and I don't have access to any commentaries I can check right now. . .

on divorce

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (New International Version) - Paul
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife

Jesus in Synoptics Mt 5:31-32, Lk 16:18; Mk 10:11-12 & Mt 19:3-12
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery

18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery


On compensation

Paul -  14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.


Jesus (Matthew and Luke)
10 Don’t carry a traveler’s bag with a change of clothes and sandals or even a walking stick. Don’t hesitate to accept hospitality, because those who work deserve to be fed.

7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.


On last supper.

Paul  1 Cor 11:23-24 and 1 Cor 11:25

Jesus  Mt 26:26;Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19. Mt 26:27; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20

There are some similarities, so I think your claim that Paul was totally oblivious to the life and teachings may be misguided.

I haven't had time to go thru all of them but I'm trying to. I'll try and post all the related verses later.

I'm just trying to see if we can find out what nuggets of Tradition Paul had access to, and where he had to be creative and improvise. I'm not one of those that are extremely suspicious of Paul. I think he may have improvised too much and been a lil too creative, but I think he had good intentions and was sincere in his beliefs. These things that give u concern happened over the course of centuries. . . when Paul was doing his thing there was lil to no benefits/prestige in being an apostle. In short, I think u are overly cynical when dealing with anything Christian. I think we can be skeptical without accusing every single person of one form of malice or another. Sue me 

@ Mazaje. U do have a point. Paul was not the founder of Christianity, but his version was adopted by the Roman empire. So Pauline Christianity is what most refer to as "Christianity".

I don't think it matters if Paul used the word "christian' we know that to mean people who believe Jesus to be the Messiah.

Deep Sight:

St. Paul. . . incredible fanatic. . .

Aren't we all

MyJoe:


First off, this is my first Krayola thread! Will read and comment.  

haha. looking forward to reading ur views.

Krayola:

@ mazaje . . If u compare those passages u may notice that there are some similarities between Paul's teachings and those attributed to Jesus.  On divorce, "compensation", and to some extent the Last Supper. I'm not sure if any of those passages are controversial and I don't have access to any commentaries I can check right now. . .

on divorce

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 (New International Version) - Paul
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife

Jesus in Synoptics Mt 5:31-32, Lk 16:18; Mk 10:11-12 & Mt 19:3-12
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[a] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery

18"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery


On compensation

Paul -  14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.


Jesus (Matthew and Luke)
10 Don’t carry a traveler’s bag with a change of clothes and sandals or even a walking stick. Don’t hesitate to accept hospitality, because those who work deserve to be fed.

7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.


On last supper.

Paul  1 Cor 11:23-24 and 1 Cor 11:25

Jesus  Mt 26:26;Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19. Mt 26:27; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20

There are some similarities, so I think your claim that Paul was totally oblivious to the life and teachings may be misguided.

I haven't had time to go thru all of them but I'm trying to. I'll try and post all the related verses later.

I'm just trying to see if we can find out what nuggets of Tradition Paul had access to, and where he had to be creative and improvise. I'm not one of those that are extremely suspicious of Paul. I think he may have improvised too much and been a lil too creative, but I think he had good intentions and was sincere in his beliefs. These things that give u concern happened over the course of centuries. . . when Paul was doing his thing there was lil to no benefits/prestige in being an apostle. In short, I think u are overly cynical when dealing with anything Christian. I think we can be skeptical without accusing every single person of one form of malice or another. Sue me 

All I said was that Paul never mentioned any of the important events surrounding the life of Jesus or any of the things the gospels said Jesus did(miracles, virgin birth etc). . .He spoke of Jesus as some one who lived very long ago . .There are similarities as well as differences in their teachings. . . .But the truth is that Paul was just another religious zealot, you seized on the early Jesus movement and gave it a life of its own. . . .

Krayola:

@ Mazaje. U do have a point. Paul was not the founder of Christianity, but his version was adopted by the Roman empire. So Pauline Christianity is what most refer to as "Christianity".

I don't think it matters if Paul used the word "christian' we know that to mean people who believe Jesus to be the Messiah.

Thanks for the clarification. . . .

If there is anything i will first recommend for anygrowing Christian, It is to get acquainted with Pauline epistle. The stories about where Jesus was born ,who was is mother are non essential. Jesus came for us to have life. He taught Paul himself what Paul needed to know. The death and resurrection of Christ is the big thing and not his birth or childhood.

Galatians 1:11-12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. [12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:15-17
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, [16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: [17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Im sure what Jesus taught him was not how the angel did his hand when he talked to Mary.

^^  If Jesus' life is not important, then what are we to do with his miracles, teachings and Parables?  I see Christians all the time quoting "words of Jesus" as authoritative, and do the same with Paul's and pretty much most people depicted in the Bible as having some kind of authority.  Who has the final word. Jesus or Paul?

Another point I was going to bring up in another thread is the Bible's portrayal of John the Baptist as subordinate to Jesus, while an examination of all the sources we have seem to suggest otherwise. JTB was the big-shot, and Jeses did not become one until after his own death. That Jesus was viewed, during his life, as subordinate to JTB, or the reason why JTB came, or whatever, is not supported by anything outside of the gospels. If it is I am unaware of it.

there was no need for paul to write letters about the life of jesus to the churches because i believe those are the things he taught them while he was with them.there was no need for such repitition. how can you say johntb was more important than jesus during their lifetimes when john said he wasnt even worthy to carry jesus sandals and was hesitant to baptise him.during jesus lifetime he performed miracles whilst john did not so how do you say jtb was more important than jc

Krayo, wassup?  

I like Karo's comments and I have a few pithy ones to add.

I fail to see how Paul's little to no commentary on the life and times of Jesus is problematic - well at least to the christian. I would imagine that the details of Jesus life (seeing how He was such a popular figure) was plastered all over the front pages of the 'Jerusalem Times' and popular fodder for the masses, and therefore was familiar to Paul's audience. But even if that weren't the case, I don't think Paul was overly interested in giving a history lesson on the person of Christ, but rather
1. expounding on & shedding theological and practical light on the gospel that He preached, and the reason for His death and resurrection
2. expressing and establishing godly guidelines and principles by which the church should operate

 Cheers.

Another rich thread from Krayola _{(DS has been relegated, he used to be high on this pedestal b4 )}


1. Paul's letters were IMO not designed to be collated together to form a scripture, at least from Paul's point of view. As he never indicated such in any of his letters. So the problem lies in trying to combine all his letters together and to make sense of them?
Since Paul was writing and teaching the gentiles, it would make sense that he had to talk extensively about the Jesus he was preaching, but since these talks (of Jesus life) are missing from Paul's letter, it raises other scenarios.

But the most likely scenario IMO was that the letters (written by Paul) that spoke extensively about the life of Jesus were omitted from biblical collation. As many of the letters in the bible written by Paul do not suggest a one-off writing. Since Paul planted those churches, he MUST have been writing to them regularly.

2. Paul spoke largely of Christ divinity, resurrection and His second coming. He also spoke extensively about the larger family of JC (which now includes the gentiles) and their acceptance in God's kingdom.

3. Paul's mission does not IMO require an extensive analysis of the life of JC. This is largely because, at the point of preaching the gospel, Paul must have orally expounded about the messiah. And since Paul also preached mainly about the urgency of the second coming of JC, it is understandable that his gospel was limited to how to live while awaiting the second coming.

Submissively, Paul did not have to write about the life of JC, as no one would accept the gospel of JC without knowing in detail the ontology and life of JC. The letters of Paul were addressed to believers and focused greatly on the urgency of the second coming.

Krayola:



Questions to ponder:

- How much did Paul know about the historical Jesus?

When Paul accepted the gift of salvation in Damascus, he was baptised and went on to preach the gospel, before he was taken to meet the apostles. Paul did spend a lot of time with them, before the holy spirit requested that he and Barnabas be separated for the work of God. Paul must have learnt a great deal about the life of Jesus, while in the company of the apostles. Also remember that when the issue of "the gentiles eating with the jews" came up, Paul attended a meeting exclusively meant for the Apostles to determine the way forward.

I also submit to you that Barnabas had first hand teachings from Jesus Christ. If that was the case and since they both went on missionary trips, then u cannot dispute Paul's knowledge of Jesus Christ.

- Where did he learn it?

I am sure I answered that above.

- Were the readers of Paul's letters already familiar with Jesus' teachings, leaving Paul with little reason to include them?

Yes.

This is because we see Paul talk about Faith, fruits of the spirit, and constantly rebuking his listeners as sinners. None of his letters was persuasively written to anyone to accept the gospels . . . . but was strictly addressed to the churches Paul planted. The letters were a back up to his already orally delivered messages.

Paul was teaching them how to manage a church and admonishing them to live holy and await the second coming. The audience was definitely one accustomed to the life of Jesus Christ.

- Why does Paul not buttress his arguments with appeals to Jesus' teachings.

There were no written messages of Jesus at that time. its like asking why was Paul not quoting the scriptures in his letters? Actaually Paul's letters are 50% contents of the old testament.

- Was Paul too focused on the cross and resurrection?

Yes. Paul (as deduced from his letters) rightly believed that the second coming was imminent.

noetic17:


There were no written messages of Jesus at that time. its like asking why was Paul not quoting the scriptures in his letters? Actaually Paul's letters are 50% contents of the old testament.

The messages of Christ were there. The apostles Christ appointed were spreading them. Paul does not buttress his teachings with the teachings of Jesus because he refused to learn from the apostles. He merely propagated his own teachings. Where did he get his teachings? He says Christ was revealed in him. (Whatever that means).Don't take my word for it. He said so himself. Galatians 1 :11-12, 16-17.

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Yeah, right.

But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was

He was constantly at war with the genuine apostles, who rejected him. Always sowing discord, always boasting and defending himself against accusations of lying. And his letters were written in Greek. The apostles spoke and wrote Aramaic.  Paul could speak and write in Aramaic but wrote his letters in Greek, which the apostles of Christ could not read.  Interesting possibilities as to why.  27 books in the New Testament. Only 8 written by the genuine apostles: Mattew, John, James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelations. The rest was made up of the writings of Paul and his descendant disciples. And no, they, not Peter, wrote 1 and 2 Peter. Their little fraud was exposed by scholars, and the stylistic similarities between the Peter letters and Pauline writing are too overwhelming for doubt. Not only that, but 2 Peter promotes whatever Paul teaches, even if you don't understand it.  2 Peter 3: 15-16


15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.

Christ HIMSELF taught Peter. What teachings could Paul have that he would not understand? And PETER would tell the churches to follow paul's teachings instead of Christ? To accept no deviation from the teachings of Paul, so you won't lose your salvation? IMPOSSIBLE.

But PAUL's letters are full of exhortations to follow him, to disregard any teachings and gospels apart from his. He is the ONLY 'apostle' who says his teachings are 'Commandments of the Lord'. You will NOT find any of the genuine apostles saying this. But Christ warned them before he died that a wolf in sheep's clothing would come. Paul is very clever. He writes 'sweet things' and then carefully puts his poison within them. Here and there. So he writes of faith and love. What do you expect? He's purporting that Christ sent him. He can't be expected to tell the churches to go out and murder.

But this is what Christ says of his apostles, the ones to whom Paul would not subject himself to their teaching and who rejected him, even though 'Christ' sent him: John 17: 1-25

1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.(Jesus Prays for His Disciples)

6"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.

THESE are the true apostles of Christ, NOT AND NEVER PAUL. He is a liar, a boaster and a false apostle. As for where his teachings departs from Christ and God's, they are LEGION. Before any of the true apostles had written a word, he'd begun propagating his own teachings and writimg letters to churches.  So insidous is his influence and his teachings that some people believe he was never converted, but infilterated the church so he could destroy it from within. There ws no other way he could get them. They were all in hiding. That's what wolves in sheep clothing do.

It seems his church grew, as they courted the Romans and seduced them with teachings that say it was God who made them kings and conquerors and Jews should subject themselves. The apostles were in Jerusalem and weren't interested in temporal power and riches but spreading the teachings of Christ. After a while the Pauline disciples attacked the Jerusalem church,as their teachings differed from Paul's, and they fled. Pauline Christianity grew, and when they composed a New Testament, his teachings and those of his cronies and disciples naturally dominated it. Of course they added stuff to these ones too. They're liars and godless men. Why wouldn't they.

I'm almost scared to post here. Max, take am easy na. The truth is very brutal as it is already. The way you are dropping your nukes will disillusion some people to oblivion. Temper temper

Isn't it better for them to know the truth than to wallow in deception? But they don't want to know. The truth is too scary. More comforting and familiar for them to continue deceiving themselves. It won't change the fact that Paul is a liar and a false apostle, and that Christ had warned his apostles to beware. All this isn't new. Many Christians have long known and have long liberated themselves. Let them stay in bondage if they wish. It's always a choice.

Bravo. More like it o. Calm calm. lol. Max, the terrible.

I typed a long post earlier and it started to get personal. Thank God the thing no post. Bottomline was that I don't tell people everything I believe is true because the human psyche turns in on itself and refuses to accept glaring turth because of the hatred for the person telling him. Instead I point them in the right direction and encourage them to read more and be more open. Me sef, I'm having trouble identifying truth among all the plethora of falsehood. I can readily recognize falsehood but not so for truth.

Lol. I know what you mean. Some of these falsehoods have been 'true' for so long it almost doesn't make sense for them to be lies. It's the long, horrible tradition of unquestioning acceptance that does it. Indoctrinate them early, tell them the bible is 'infallible' and they themselves do the rest, fighting tooth and nail for the infallible bible. A tactic the Roman Church devised to get authority over Kings and Princes, to access earthly power and riches you can't imagine. They made kings and the people believe you could 'lose your soul' if they excommunicated you, a tactic that frightened the kings and people half to death, and secured the Church's authority. Their authority rested on the infallible bible, so it was crucial that it not be questioned but blindly accepted. And this authority they used to spread lies and do incredible, jaw-dropping evil.

On the flip side, some people have such an overly developed sense and taste for the dramatic that almost anything that holds a contrary view to 'accepted' truth must be true almost solely on that premise alone. It is so outrageous it must be true. Most conspiracy theorists are like this. It is my opinion that give a clever guy a starting point and an end, he'll weave plots so profound, so believable, so under-your-nose-like that you'll believe it in a second. Until the next clever guy comes along and have you believe in something else.

I think Mr. Dan Brown knows this or he's like this himself.

Who really was Paul of Trasus?. . . .

Apostel?
Disciple?
Believer?
Fraud?
Crazy  end of day zealot?
Opportunist?
Charlatan?

noetic17:


Since Paul planted those churches, he MUST have been writing to them regularly.

It is doubtful. A letter was a very expensive thing to send and would take months to get to the receiver.

But there are other letters attributed to Paul that did not make the Bible. Amongst them:

    * Third Epistle to the Corinthians (canonical for a time in the Armenian Orthodox)
    * Epistle to the Laodiceans (found in Codex Fuldensis)
    * Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul (addressed to Paul, not written by him)
    * Epistle to the Alexandrians

Also, referring to this:

If Paul was our only source for info on Jesus. .

1) We would not have the identity of Jesus's mother
2) We would not be aware that Jesus was from Galilee
3) We would not know that Jesus was baptized
4) We would not know that Jesus taught in Parables
5) We would not know that Jesus performed miracles
6) We would not know that Jesus ate with sinners
7) We would not know that Jesus confronted some Pharisees
8 ) We would not know that Jesus entered Jerusalem and overturned tables in the temple

Actually, if "Paul" was our only source of info, we would know about all the above.
Because the liklihood is that the author of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke.
Although Paul didn't write Acts, the author obviously has some knowledge of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke-Acts

If we are taking the Letters alone though, it is no suprise that they do not contain the points in the quote. They are technical letters concerning the running of the Churches. It would probably already be assumed that the recipient of the letter would know about the life of Jesus.

What's all this toss of 'academic' nonsense? Paul simply wrote what God needed him to write and the other writers from Moses to Mark all wrote what God needed them to write. It's all the WORD of God. Obviously, Paul was most educated compared to other apostles and was more vast. He was a vessel fit for His master's use in that capacity. When are you going to start being useful to your Master(God)?

LMAO. "Academic nonsense"?

Yes. Academic nonsense that has a solid foundation in logic and proof.
Whereas your claim is based in the fantasy world of the ignorant.

When are you going to start being useful to your Master(God)?

I could ask the same. Do you think that he put you on this planet just to swallow any old drivel?

vescucci:

On the flip side, some people have such an overly developed sense and taste for the dramatic that almost anything that holds a contrary view to 'accepted' truth must be true almost solely on that premise alone. It is so outrageous it must be true. Most conspiracy theorists are like this. It is my opinion that give a clever guy a starting point and an end, he'll weave plots so profound, so believable, so under-your-nose-like that you'll believe it in a second. Until the next clever guy comes along and have you believe in something else.

I think Mr. Dan Brown knows this or he's like this himself. 

Lunatic.

Paul's status as a liar and a fake is based on proof, though.I could show you the guy's a LIAR and a sower of discord WITHOUT going outside the Bible. The surface hasn't even been scratched. We could let his own words and actions alone condemn him, and not refer to a single thing OUTSIDE the Bible. But not today. Perhaps he wanted to destroy the church from within, but he was also seduced by by the thought of having a movement of his own followers, and worked tirelessly on his own behalf. When it suited him he would declare he was a Pharisee and not a Christian. When the danger is past, he would suddenly remember he is an 'apostle'. Check out your main guy in Acts 23 1-7

1Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, "My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day." 2At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!"

4Those who were standing near Paul said, "You dare to insult God's high priest?"

5Paul replied, "Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.'[a]"

6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." 7When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.

See that? He's an 'apostle' elsewhere, a Pharisee in Rome. Busy telling lies and sowing discord. And that's not even the beginning. As for his 'conversion' story, it keeps changing depending on who's listening. And he names no witnesses ever. Christ says by the word of two or three witnesses is a thing established. The 'Lord' is always appearing to him when none of the real apostles are there or when he's alone. Christ showed himself to his apostles when He rose, and promised them the Holy Spirit and power. They had these, and waited for His return. There is no evidence that they ever saw Him again. Oh but Paul sees 'The Lord' regularly. A light is either falling from heaven or He is appearing only to him when no one else is there.He is the FALSE APOSTLE, the wolf Christ warned his true apostles about. Modern Jews know he's a fake and laugh Christians to scorn.

Don't imagine people didn't know down the ages. They did. But if they talked, they were hustled to the stake by The Inquisition and burned to death for 'heresy', according to the doctrine Paul and his disciples lay down for 'sinners' in 1 Corinthians 5:4-5.

When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the flesh may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

WHERE OH WHERE DID CHRIST OR ANY OF THE APOSTLES TEACH THAT? To kill sinners and 'heretics' by destroying their flesh (burning them) so they can be 'saved'?

To die by fire is a terrible thing. You know when the Roman Church finally dismantled the stake and the rack and The Inquisition? THE 19TH CENTURY! Do you have any idea how many people were burned at the stake over hundreds of years? Millions! People lived in terror for centuries and kept their mouth shut. Modern Jews simply don't take Christians seriously. No reason why they should.

Mad_Max:
Paul's status as a liar and a fake is based on proof, though.I could show you the guy's a LIAR and a sower of discord WITHOUT going outside the Bible. The surface hasn't even been scratched. We could let his own words and actions alone condemn him, and not refer to a single thing OUTSIDE the Bible.

Few years ago, in my junior year of college, I needed to take a distribution class in the arts to fulfill ancillary requirements for my major. I was running my finger through the list on the bulletin board, and to my suprise, the college was offering a unique class that semester titled "New Testament". I've never been one to adopt an "intellectual" approach to matters of faith but this would definitely be better than another boring philosophy class I thought.

So halfway through the semester, a strong argument is raging in class about Paul being a mysoginist, impostor, preaching a different gospel etc etc I'm more of a listener so I'm just sitting back enjoying the show. And the professor (who to my suprise was not a christian at all, but a serious bible history enthusiast, borderline obsessed I would say) with his dingy glasses and khaki pants, quiets the class, then remarks in voice that I have never forgotten, and with a tone that was dangerously close to tears, and with a reverence that seemed to come from deep within his soul, he said "if Paul were alive today, I think he would be devasted with grief, overcome with pain and shock and simply die of disappointment at how his letters have been misunderstood".

With that, he dismissed the class.

JeSoul:


So halfway through the semester, a strong argument is raging in class about Paul being a mysoginist, impostor, preaching a different gospel etc etc I'm more of a listener so I'm just sitting back enjoying the show. And the professor (who to my suprise was not a christian at all, but a serious bible history enthusiast, borderline obsessed I would say) with his dingy glasses and khaki pants, quiets the class, then remarks in voice that I have never forgotten, and with a tone that was dangerously close to tears, and with a reverence that seemed to come from deep within his soul, he said "if Paul were alive today, I think he would be devasted with grief, overcome with pain and shock and simply die of disappointment at how his letters have been misunderstood".

With that, he dismissed the class.

. . . But what he really should have said was  "if Paul were alive today, I think he would be devasted with grief, overcome with pain and shock and simply die of disappointment at how his letters have been understood differently from the way I understand them".

^Pastor sir   It's always good to have your input. As per ^ that induced a chuckle from me . . . who's to say what professor understands is not the understanding? but we probably won't know until all is known.

I find it quite interesting and a testament to how 2 people looking at a singular object, can arrive at vastly different opinions or analyses. Saw it just yesterday at the department meeting. After the presentation on the conference:

Scientist A: QbD philosophy could be the next "it" in experimental design, really provide a simpler, more efficient platform for small and large companies all across the board
Scientist B: I really don't see the point, what is the purpose or usefulness of this? this has so many pitfalls and could result in disaster for an investigational drug.

We all look at things through the lens of our experiences. The real tragedy will be for Scientist B to call Scientist A deluded, misguided, indoctrinated etc - simply because he cannot see what Scientist A sees.

JeSoul:


  Few years ago, in my junior year of college, I needed to take a distribution class in the arts to fulfill ancillary requirements for my major. I was running my finger through the list on the bulletin board, and to my suprise, the college was offering a unique class that semester titled "New Testament". I've never been one to adopt an "intellectual" approach to matters of faith but this would definitely be better than another boring philosophy class I thought.

So halfway through the semester, a strong argument is raging in class about Paul being a mysoginist, impostor, preaching a different gospel etc etc I'm more of a listener so I'm just sitting back enjoying the show. And the professor (who to my suprise was not a christian at all, but a serious bible history enthusiast, borderline obsessed I would say) with his dingy glasses and khaki pants, quiets the class, then remarks in voice that I have never forgotten, and with a tone that was dangerously close to tears, and with a reverence that seemed to come from deep within his soul, he said "if Paul were alive today, I think he would be devasted with grief, overcome with pain and shock and simply die of disappointment at how his letters have been misunderstood". With that, he dismissed the class.

PROOF. PROOF. PROOF.
If evidence is furnished to the contrary, I'll be happy to change my mind. I will truly rejoice, and so will millions of Christians, because all this is horrifying. Your professor may present Paul alive to come and cry over how he's been misunderstood. Christ is not misunderstood. The apostles are not misunderstood. Oh but Paul is misunderstood. How convenient for Paul.

Faith is based on no man, but on Christ and Christ alone. Let every man be false. Christ will remain true. Paul is not the foundation of my faith. He is not the Son of God. The chastisement of my sins was not upon him. He's just a man. He is not God, he's not Christ. He's a man. Anyone may place him where he does not belong and worship him. It's a very, very free world.

Pastor AIO:

. . . But what he really should have said was  "if Paul were alive today, I think he would be devasted with grief, overcome with pain and shock and simply die of disappointment at how his letters have been understood differently from the way I understand them".

Yeah.

Mad_Max:

PROOF. PROOF. PROOF.

  In matters of Faith, proof is over-rated. And understanding is an illusion if only the intellect is applied.

I don't think any christian worships Paul Max. Just our estimation and understanding of his message sharply differs from yours. You are scientist B. And honestly, that is perfectly fine as I do not seek by any means to convince you or anyone else otherwise. Let each man sincerely seek and may God see it fit to reward such a soul with a find. Perhaps your views will converge with others someday, perhaps not. As I remarked to Pastor AIO, this is one of those things we will never know, until the day all is known.

Cheers.