2007-09-16 04:39:33 · 16 answers · asked by MoPleasure4U 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well... first of all, he wasn't an apostle... he was not one of the '12'. Secondly... no apostles existed, anyway... they were fictional characters in the fictional gospels, signifying the 12 signs of the Zodiac, with the fictional Jesus representing the 'sun'. This was a common theme in many of the 'salvation cults' that were extent in biblical times... the 'suffering-hero-king' arthetype. The Gopels were not a history of Jesus... they were a series of vignettes... a Judaized version of the archetype, incorporation references to Hebrew scripture to create the illusion of prophecies fulfilled. You know... if you add up all the 'Jesus-time' accounted for in the gospels, it works out to less than 3-weeks... and there is absolutely ZERO corroborating evidence for ANY of it, external to the fictional work itself... the bible.
2007-09-16 04:51:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
properly... no longer merely like the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus in the previous the latter's crucifixion. in accordance to the Acts of the Apostles, his conversion occurred as he became traveling the line to Damascus, he experienced a imaginative and prescient of the resurrected Jesus. He became quickly blinded. Paul asserts that he gained the Gospel no longer from guy, yet by ability of "the revelation of Jesus Christ".
2016-11-15 09:13:26 · answer #2 · answered by blaylock 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am so glad that God made him into what he made him into. He was a breath of fresh air in the terrible times the early Christians had in establishing the church. The Apostles chose Matthias, but God chose Paul to be the twelfth Apostle. And it is so lame that so many steer themselves away from the message of grace and into the message of bondage like that of James that the rest of the legalists. So very sad that they ignore the words of God's choice and have adopted or reconciled a message from someone who was not even an Apostle!
Peter was on board with the message of Paul in Acts 15, when he said at the Council at Jerusalem, "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11 )
And they ignored him. Even Paul and Barnabas were sent to give the resulting letter to the Gentiles. Paul would buckle every time James was around!
Yet Paul came around and gave plenty of evidence that what James and his ilk said to him was true, ""You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs." ( Acts 21 : 20 - 21)
So Paul proved his weakness then too. But thank God that he was forgiven as well as I am for when I screw up. I love Paul, and love that he was there, so perfectly placed by God.
2007-09-16 04:59:20 · answer #3 · answered by Christian Sinner 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Astute theologian, well-versed in Hellenistic literature and Aristotelian philosophy, liked Socrates but didn't care much for Plato. He is the most misunderstood theologian in the Bible (possibly the most misunderstood author in Christianity). Several spurious works are falsely attributed to him (such as Hebrews, Titus, Timothy, Philemon, etc.).
The Jesus Seminar has fabricated a non-existent schism between so-called "Pauline" Christianity and the early Jesus movement in an attempt to rationalize their theory that the Gospel of Jesus was predominantly social, rather than religious. That, along with the misogynistic statements in non-Pauline epistles, has lead many people to hate "Pauline" Christianity.
The writings of Paul are also twisted to substantiate Augustinian doctrines like Original Sin and Substitutionary Atonement. In fact, neither of these are taught by Paul.
2007-09-16 04:50:37 · answer #4 · answered by NONAME 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
We will be known by our fruits. Paul has one that I relish:
"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance."
Namaste
Peace and Love
2007-09-16 05:38:39 · answer #5 · answered by digilook 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is possible that Paul and his collaborators used what they knew of the life of Jeboshua ben Panthera (Jesus) and possibly also of Apollonius of Tyana in preparing the allegorical life story needed for the presentation of the spiritual ideas now contained in the New Testament. What they knew of the training and trials of the great Initiates of the Mysteries seems also to have influenced them, so that finally their story of Jesus symbolized the evolution of man to final perfection and union with his spiritual Self.
2007-09-16 05:20:59 · answer #6 · answered by reverendrichie 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well said, rossonero_2006, you beat me to it. ;)
It's been strange, but there seems to be this growing hatred of the Apostle Paul. To whom Peter writes the following...
2 Peter 3:14-16
Consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people [like Punter] twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
I, for one, thought Paul was the most brilliant Messianic Jew that ever lived.
2007-09-16 04:45:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I think he was possibly the worst thing to ever happen to Christianity. Christians were better off when he was killing them. I wonder if the Romans didn't pay him to infiltrate the Church, then cause havoc by seizing control, making women powerless, and just generally mucking things up. Sure made the new religion easier for the Romans to control - more like the status quo they were used to.
2007-09-16 04:51:06 · answer #8 · answered by Cat 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
He was an intense guy who's probably sitting very close to the throne of God right now.
He has been bashed for ages, going back to the times of the early church. Peter wrote:
2 Peter 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
No prob Schneb, nice to know I'm not the only one who knows these verses are in the Bible! :)
2007-09-16 04:45:21 · answer #9 · answered by Rossonero NorCal SFECU 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Paulism
2007-09-16 04:46:24 · answer #10 · answered by Johnny 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋