Statements Made About Apostle Paul

1. 0

   Deborah Sextonposted 12 years ago

   From The Davis D. Danizier Website/Blog
   
   
   Christian "Fundamentalism" is
   the Triumph of Paul of Tarsus
   over Jesus of Nazareth
   
   Albert Schweitzer :
   "Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."
   
   Carl Jung (Psychologist) :
   "Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." (U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)
   
   George Bernard Shaw :
   "No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."
   
   Bishop John S. Spong
   (Episcopal theologian) :
   "Paul's words are not the Words of God.
   They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
   (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism,
   p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)
   
   Thomas Jefferson :
   "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
   {from a letter addressed to W. Short and published in
   The Great Thoughts, by George Seldes,
   Ballantine Books, N.Y., 1985, p. 208)
   
   Thomas Hardy :
   "The New Testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."
   
   Will Durant (Philosopher) :
   "Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants
   can be found in the words of Christ."
   Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
   & "Paul created a theology about the man Jesus,
   a man that he did not even know 50 or more years
   after the death of Jesus, with complete disregards
   for even the sayings attributed to Jesus.
   Jesus got lost in the metaphysical fog of Paul's brain".
   
   Bishop Polycarp
   One of the earliest of the official Church Fathers,
   (who is believed by many to have learned about Jesus from the John the evangelist) complained
   that neither he nor anyone was "able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul."
   
   Walter Kaufmann
   (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton) :
   "Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."
   
   Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author) :
   "My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])

   replyreport
   1. 61

      kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What is this?
      
      You are using the words of other men to condemn a man as false, when the man himself has enough word to justify or condemn himself?
      
      How can you condemn that which you did not understand.
      
      And in your zeal to condemn you employ the words of men falsely because the words of Polycarp was not meant to discredit but actually the opposite.
      
      Nevertheless, what make you think that the men you are quoting is of Truth? I am certain you would have much negative things to say about their doctrine also.
      And they themselves goes about protecting their own sects  and that would mean that they would seek to protect others from you also.
      
      I say you are on     vendetta against Paul because you are seeking to set your own self up on a pedastal.
      
      This is the way of religion...critersize what they do not understand so as to  build themselves.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   Those are some impressive quotes you have gathered on the subject. And, from reading your posts, you are a passionate advocate of the belief that Paul was not a follower of Yahshua.
   
   I am curious about something. You’ve attempted to shed light on the subject and I would think you have to admit that the fundamentalist is doggedly entrenched in Paulian (spelling?) doctrine. Do you see it as possible that Christianity as a whole will ever ‘see the light’? Since none but the most liberal of Christians are willing to take an honest and critical look at Paul.
   
   If you think it is possible, I'd be interested in hearing how you think it would be done.

   replyreport
3. 75

   stclairjackposted 12 years ago

   deffinately somthing to think on.

   replyreport
4. 60

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   Paul taught that to think an evil thing, to be tempted, is a sin. Jesus was tempted. Paul has led those of little understanding down a false path, and all the "churches" have sprung off from that. I believe that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Sinbadsailormanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      To entertain and evil thought is a sin. To have one and not denounce It; this is a sin.  To be tempted is not a sin to accept the temptation is a sin. As is to entertain It is; because you allow  these both to grow and Gain power over you.
      
      And being a child of GOD is to Know how to discern these subtle differences. If you can Not discern the Truth you are yet a prisoner of this world. And Its Ruling Government of Powers and Principalities. Nothing More and Nothing Less.
      
      These Points of SIN are Black or White never Grey or any other variance of color or vibration. 
      
      Clear Cut and to the point Is our Father! His fallen son is not! Nor are any of his ruling angels that have also fallen; or their follows. The Christian or Christ man, Man of Christ  Knows this or they should Know This!

      replyreport
5. 60

   Disappearingheadposted 12 years ago

   I'm sure people can present a load of Paul's sayings as evidence he was in harmony with Yahshua, and another load as evidence that he preached a different gospel. Though Paul taught that the law (I guess mosaic law) was fulfilled in Yahshua, I get the sense that he bound Chrstians up in a different way; a load of other hoops we must jump through instead. It's resulted in a legalistic Church which divides humanity into black and white, evil immoral sinners, and the righteous Christian.
   
   The truth is there is an infinite variation in the shades of grey between the black and the white. There are very many righteous unbelievers who live according to their good conscience, what the Christian and Paul would call "living in the spirit", (a term I don't remember Yashua using). But yet as righteous as these are by the standards of humanity, the Church still tells them they are filthy sinners, even if their righteousness exceeds that of the Church. Similarly, there are plenty of Christians who live very unrghteous lives, with little regard for anyone outside of thir belief system. Though these latter Christians we are told are not proper Christians, but where is the dividing line between the two, who on Earth is making the judgement call here?
   
   Yahshua taught freedom, freedom to just be, and freedom to be true to ourselves and our Father in heaven. I don't sense that Paul does, and certainly the Chuch doesn't. Yahshua being Jewish did not preach doctrine as Judaism is not a doctrinal religion. Paul preached doctrine, you must believe this or that, do this or do that, be this or be that. To the Church, you are never good enough, you must always be striving on, pressing into God as they call it. But this is not freedom.
   
   Whatever you choose to believe about Paul, by the definition laid down by the apostles in Acts 1 for the replacement of Judas, Paul is not an apostle. We are not part of Paul's Church, so we are under no compulsion to be obedient to his commands, (women speaking or leading, men having long hair, etc, etc). Paul's letters express his opinions, his views, the gospel as he saw it, and in all that he is no different to the Pope, the Arch Bishop of Cantebury, or the TV evangelist. Paul's words are not gospel, and we only have them because out of all the documents existent at the time, his were selected to be included by committee. The irony is it was a Catholic committee, the committee of a Church that millions of Christians claim is not Christian.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I like the way you worded thia
        We tend to forget that Basic truth is truth until we interpret it.
      With each interpretation, a little bit of truth is lost.
      
      We live in a   "Yes that's right ...  BUT"  kind of world.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks Jerami.

         replyreport