Why was Paul so vehemently opposed to good conduct (works) as means of salvation, and insisted that faith alone suffices, conferring righteousness even in deadly sin (Rom 8:10) ?

Joagbaje:
@OP


You misunderstand Paul that's all . Many misunderstood him also in the bible days including apostle Peter.

1pet 3:15
. . . ;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.

Others falsely accusing him of encouraging sin as religious mockers do today to teachers of grace .

Romans 3:8
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Any one who must mature in the things of the spirit must be rooted in the doctrine of Paul. He was given the revelation of the church.

Galatians 1:11
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.

Joagbaje: Remember that Jesus didn't tell the disciples everything. They were not yet born again. They hadnt recieved the holyghost yet. And thereby didn't have facility to recieve deeper truth.It's the holyghost that actually came to lead the church into truth. So,

John 16:12
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


paul was rather a complement to Jesus .

buzugee: you raise some good points but i think you are lost in translation

here are alternative translations

2 corinthians 11 vs 17 When I talk as a confident boaster, I am not talking with the Lord's authority but like a fool. ( i dont see anything wrong with this statement )

romans 3 vs 7 "But," someone might still argue, "how can God condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory?" ( looks to me like he is making an argument with himself and not stating as fact that he is outrightly lying )

as for paul always emphasizing faith instead of works, what he is trying to say is that you can be a slave to ' following the laws and commandments ' and hence feel imprisoned. but if you enhance your faith and your spiritual nature, then your body naturally falls in line with the ways of the lord and as such you dont have to focus on your works. the laws are just a guideline as to what is right and wrong. if you have no faith, then you need to be guided by the laws, however if your faith is strong, your faith will guide you instead of the laws. seems like an easy concept to grasp.

( keep in mind i only read your first post. i am feeling lazy to delve into the second one. i will try to muster up the strength. interesting post though )

rhymz: brother, lets not forget that Paul was not one of Jesus's disciples. In fact, Paul never met Jesus physically, so it is pertinent that we don't talk about John16:12 and the ensuing verses like Paul was amongst those to which Jesus was telling will recieve the spirit of truth when the holyghost comes upon them. Besides, Jesus would have typically told them that a more different and spiritually superior message would be given to somebody outside of the twelve disciples just like he predicted his betrayal.

Galatians 2:8-9
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Let's not forget that Paul's claims of meeting Jesus was actually a private affair that was not substantiated by anyone else besides himself hence the need to validate himself all the time that he was sent by God. Our God does not contradict himself,

he can't say to Peter james and co that salvation is by virtue of the observance of the law and by faith in our lord Jesus while he tells Paul that salvation is by virtue of one's faith in him

Jesus christ even if one does not observe the law. Is it not obvious from reading Romans 7 from verse one to the end that Paul's emphasy for the disregard of Judaic laws stemmed from the fact that he had inner morally debasing desires that he struggles with which runs contrary to Judaic laws and even Christ's teachings. If you observe very well with an open mind, U will notice that even though he claims to be spreading the gospel of christ, his teachings always end up going contrary to christ's teachings and dwelled a lot on human emotions that can't be controlled as it concerns the law and man's default sinful nature

Let's not forget that it was Paul that introduced the whole concept of a new convenant with christ and the new testament which erases mosaic laws which is the basis of Judaic laws. Till today, judo christians even though less popular than the Pauline Christians do not agree on the concept and philosophy of faith based salvation which is what the entire christiandom preaches. I would advice that you keep an open mind and especially the second article I posted about Paul being the founder of christianity.

omosexy1: @Joagbaje I thought (please if I am wrong correct me) Jesus said that on Peter (rock) I shall build my church. I also believe that in the bible (please also correct me if I am wrong) that Jesus said he did not come for the gentiles or uncleaned ones (can't remember how it was written) I know I have read that part in the bible. Joagbaje I think I disagree with you that the disciples were not clear about their task, their mission or the kingdom of God until the day of Pentecost. It is in the bible, that Jesus revealed the Kingdom of God to them. I think the day of pentecost was a mystical exercise to commission their work. Probably that is why they were surprised that someone like Paul who never saw Jesus, listened to Jesus, practiced with Jesus and then claim to be from Jesus. Anyways, I wasn't there but I think there are some distortions sha. The truth shall set us free

rhymz: The Apostle Paul Founder of Christianity
by Lewis Loflin
Jesus was not the founder of Christianity as we know it today. Most of the New Testament doesn't even concern the historical Jesus while the main influence is the Apostle Paul and through the church he founded at Ephesus a Greek convert named John. Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, he only claimed some spiritual visions and proceeded to Hellenize the teachings of Jesus (who preached a generic form of Judaism), until he created Pauline Christianity. Because there are no known writings from Jesus or His actual Apostles, most of what He really taught is remains controversial. Also see the disputed Gnostic Gospels .
But according to Paul, Jesus' teachings are not relevant to salvation. While Jesus is regarded by Christians as the founder of thefaith, Paul's role in defining Christianity can't be ignored and trumps Jesus on theology. "Paul is regarded as the great interpreter of Jesus' mission, who explained, in a way that Jesus himself never did, how Jesus' life and death fitted into a cosmic scheme of salvation, stretching fromthe creation of Adam to the end of time." The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching or influence of Paul, a Pharisee(?) who rejected his Pharisaic Judaism.
His worship was that of a "Christ" totally unrelated to the Jewish Messiah, a nationalist (and human) figure that was supposed to free the nation from foreign (Roman) rule. Paul would later be placed over his Jewish-Christian rivals by a Gnostic heretic named Marcion. See Marcion . The Church in its struggles with both Marcion and the Gnostics was forced to define itself and launch an internal war to silence opponents.
What is shown below is taken word for word from The Sierra Reference Encyclopedia .
Copyright 1996 P. F. Collier, L. P. All rights reserved.
PAUL, ST.
PAUL, ST. (died c. A.D. 68), founder of PaulineChristianity. His name was originally Saul. Helater claimed that he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, from a long-established Pharisee family in Tarsus. According to Acts (though not according to Paul himself) he studied in Jerusalem under Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees and grandson of Hillel.
This account of Paul's youth, however, is subject to doubt, since the tribe of Benjamin had long ceased to exist, and Pharisee families are otherwise unknown inTarsus. According to Paul's opponents, the Ebionites, he came from a family of recent converts to Judaism. He learnt the trade of tent-making (or perhaps leather-working), by which he made his living.
While still a youth in Jerusalem, Saul became part of the opposition to the newly formed Jerusalem Church (the disciples of Jesus, who, believing that Jesus had been resurrected, continued to hope for his return to complete his messianic mission). Saul was present at the death of Stephen. Soon after, Saul was an active persecutor of the Jerusalem Church, entering its synagogues and arresting its members. Acts represents this as due to Saul's zeal as a Pharisee, but this is doubtful, as the Pharisees, under Gamaliel, were friendly to the Jerusalem Church (see Acts 5).
Moreover, Saul was acting in concert with the high priest (Acts 9:2), who was a Sadducee opponent of the Pharisees. It seems likely that Saul was at this period an employee of the Roman-appointed high priest, playing a police role in suppressing movements regarded as a threat to the Roman occupation. Since Jesus had been crucified on a charge of sedition, his followers were under the same cloud.
The high priest then entrusted Saul with an important mission, which was to travel to Damascus to arrest prominent members of the Jerusalem Church. This must have been a clandestine kidnapping operation, since Damascus was not under Roman rule at thetime but was in fact a place of refuge for the persecuted Nazarenes.
On the way to Damascus, Paul experienced avision of Jesus that converted him from persecutor to believer. Paul joined the Christians of Damascus, but soon he had to flee Damascus to escape the officers of KingAretas (II Corinthians 11:32-33), though a later, less authentic, account in Acts 9:22-25 changes his persecutors to "the Jews."
After his vision, according to Paul's own account (Galatians 1:17), he went into the desert of Arabia for a period, seeking no instruction. According to Acts, however, he sought instruction first from Ananias of Damascus and then from the apostles in Jerusalem. These contradictory accounts reflect a change in Paul's status: in his own view, he had received a revelation that put him far higher than the apostles, while in later Church opinion he had experienced a conversion that was only the beginning of his development as a Christian.
Paul's self-assessment is closer to the historical truth, which is that he was the founder of Christianity. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples had any intention of founding a new religion. The need for a semblance of continuity between Christianity and Judaism, and between Gentile and Jewish Christianity, led to a playing-down of Paul's creative role. The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in the Paulinist book of Acts, which contrasts withPaul's earlier and more authentic account inGalatians 2.
Paul's originality lies in his conception of the death of Jesus as saving mankind from sin. Instead of seeing Jesus as a messiah of the Jewish type human savior from political bondage, he saw him as a salvation-deity whose atoning death by violence was necessary to release his devotees for immortal life. This view of Jesus' death seems to have come to Paul in his Damascus vision. Its roots lie not in Judaism, but in mystery-religion, with which Paul was acquainted in Tarsus.
The violent deaths of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and Dionysus brought divinization to their initiates. Paul, as founder of the new Christian mystery, initiated the Eucharist, echoing the communion meal of the mystery religions. The awkward insertion ofeucharistic material based on I Corinthians 11:23-26 into the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels cannot disguise this, especially as the evidence is that the Jerusalem Churchdid not practise the Eucharist.
Paul's missionary campaign began c.44 in Antioch. He journeyed to Cyprus, where he converted Sergius Paulus, the governor of the island. It was probably at this point thathe changed his name from Saul to Paul, in honor of his distinguished convert. After journeys in Asia Minor where he made manyconverts, Paul returned to Antioch. His second missionary tour (51-53) took him as far as Corinth; and his third (54-58) led to a three-year stay in Ephesus. It was during these missionary periods that he wrote his Epistles.
Paul's new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianityan awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul's new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus' atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus' brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).
At the ensuing conference, agreement was reached that Paul's Gentile converts did not need to observe the Torah. This was not a revolutionary decision, since Judaism had never insisted on full conversion to Judaism for Gentiles. But Paul on this occasion concealed his belief that the Torah was no longer valid for Jews either. He was thus confirmed in the role of "apostle to the Gentiles," with full permission to enroll Gentiles in the messianic movement without requiring full conversion to Judaism.
It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full extent of Paul's views that a serious rift began between Pauline and Jewish Christianity. At a second conference in Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews"to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views, and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of theTorah. His deception, however, was detected by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protestensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whomhe declared for his protection that he was aRoman citizen. This surprising announcement was the end of Paul's association with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.
The Roman commandant, Claudius Lysias, decided to bring Paul before the Sanhedrin in order to discover the cause of the disturbance. With great presence of mind, Paul appealed to the Pharisee majority to acquit him, claiming to be a Pharisee like James. Paul was rescued by the Pharisees from the high priest, like Peter before him. However, the high priest, resenting this escape, appointed a body of men to assassinate Paul. Learning of the plot, Paul again placed himself under the protection of the Romans, who transported him by armed guard from Jerusalem to Caesarea. The High Priest Ananias was implacable, no doubt because of Paul's defection from his police task in Damascus, and laid a charge of anti-Roman activity against him.
Paul appealed for a trial in Rome before Caesar, his right as a Roman citizen. The assertion of Acts that the Jewish "elders" were also implicated in the charges against Paul is unhistorical, since these same elders had just acquitted him in his Sanhedrin trial. Paul was sent to Rome, and here our information ends. Legends speak of his eventual martyrdom in Rome.
Paul's authentic voice is found in his Epistles. Here he appears as an eloquent writer, skilled in asserting his authority overhis converts as their inspired teacher.
The view often asserted, however, that Paulwrites in the style of a rabbi is incorrect. Hisoccasional attempts to argue in rabbinical style (e.g., Romans 7:1-6) reveal his lack of knowledge of rabbinic logic. Paul's letters belong to Greek literature and have affinity to Stoic and Cynic literature. His knowledge of the Scriptures is confined to their Greek translation, the Septuagint. Paul was a religious genius, who invested Greek mystery-religion with the historical sweep and authority of the Jewish Bible.

rhymz: @Omos

rhymz:
Why was Paul so vehemently opposed to good conduct (works) as means of salvation, and insisted that faith alone suffices, conferring righteousness even in deadly sin (Rom 8:10) ?
The answer can be found in Paul’s derangedpersonality. From his epistles it is evident that Paul was a morally weak troubled soul who agonized and battled in vain with some unspeakable personal demon or abominable sinful trait, which try as he may, Paul couldn’t give up:
“I do not understand my own actions, for I do not do what I want but what I hate… ForI know nothing good dwells within me…As I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want ” – Romans 7:15-19
Although Paul didn’t have the guts to mention in his epistles the unspeakable evil that troubled him, it has been suggested that he was a repressed homosexual who couldn’t change his “sinful” nature that violated traditional Judaic law. Hence the heretic nut-job formulated the warped misleading idiocy that faith can actually transform ungodly evil into righteousness:
“To one who does not work (by the law) but trusts him who justifies the ungodly , his faith is reckoned as righteousness” – Rom 4:5
Islam’s “prophet” Mohammed would have loved this wacky sophistry that rationalizes and justifies ungodly evil. He is known to have plundered, robbed, raped, massacred, paedophiled and incested all in righteous devotion to the Muslim false god – Allah.
Paul blundered further:
“If Christ is in you, even if your bodies are dead in sin, your spirits are alive in righteousness” – Rom 8:10
Seriously, why would any sinful Paulinist (sorry Christian) bother to be good, if faith in Christ is all that is required for righteousness?
This is utterly incomprehensible to we “pagan” African traditionalists for whom exemplary good conduct is mandatory for ascension to the higher spiritual dimension in the afterlife where as deified ancestors we become one with our creator.
In traditional African spirituality, there’s no free ticket or short cut to “heaven”. Belief insome fairy-tale man-god does not substitute for good conduct and cannot make up for wicked sinful life.
On the other hand there is no everlasting burning torture in hellfire by a cruel vindictive deity (Allah, Yahweh). Those who are not good enough for heavenly deification are reincarnated and given another opportunity. Herein lies the significance of African names like Babatunde, Yetunde, Nnanna, Ekaete, Magajiall of which are rooted in the African concept of reincarnation.
Enough digression. Paul concocted the inane claptrap of faith transmuting evil intorighteousness as some sort of ego defence mechanism to deal with his self-loathing “sinful” guilt – “nothing good dwells in me”(Rom 7:18) . The homosexual hypothesis is supported by the fact that Paul never married, and from his condescending remarks about women.
Paul’s fabricated doctrine is further laid bare by his own admission that his misleading preachments were not from God but were driven by egomania:
“What I am saying, I say not with the Lord’s authority but as a fool in boastful confidence. Since many of you boast, I too will boast ” – 2 Cor 11:17-18
This is contrary to what today’s Paulinists would have us believe that the Judeo-Christian god inspired the authors of their Bible. Paul on the other hand, the most pre-eminent author in the New testament not only clearly stated that he wasn’t inspired by Yahweh, but actually admitted to lying for his quasi-religious agenda:
“But through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abound, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” – Romans 3:7
From the above verse, wacko Paulo seemed genuinely perplexed that his lies for his bogus dogma were considered sinful. Such was the perverted morality of the founder of modern Christianity.
This notion of lying to advance a religious agenda is not peculiar to Christianity, but also obtains in Islam – the other major falsedogma with which we Africans have been brainwashed. In Islam it is called Taqiyya (deception), and partly explains the cognitive dissonance of Muslims whose claims about Islam contradict observed reality.
Muslims insist theirs is a “religion of peace” but we non-Muslims know Islam to be the most violently intolerant dogma humanity has ever known (Quran 9:5,123). They claim the Quran is a repository of scientific knowledge, but even Muslims acknowledge the Islamic world lags far behind the non-Muslim world in science & technology.
They claim Islam enhances the position of women, but the worst forms of misogynistic abuse and violence against women are rampant in the Islamic world – honor killing, stoning to death, pedophillia, forced marriage, female genital mutilation etc.
Back to Pauline deception. The cock and bullyarn about Paul’s dubious road-to-Damascus conversion after a prior history ofsupposedly persecuting Christians, is strikingly similar to the false testimonies sometimes given by evangelical Christians intoday’s Churches to dramatically exaggeratethe impact of Jesus on their miserable lives.
Typically goes, “I was formerly an assassin or armed robber until I received Jesus…blah blah blah”. It beats me why the police neverarrest these publicly self-confessed killers and armed bandits even though there’s no statute of limitations on murder or armed robbery.
The truth of the matter is that the dreary frustrating misery of their pathetic existence which drives their vacuous placebo solace in churches would be much less compelling story for wooing converts and perpetuating their mental enslavement. Hence the need to embellish their otherwise less captivating accounts with the “I was formerly a witch” crap.
Evidence that the road-to-Damascus yarn was a hoax can be found in the inconsistencies and contradictions of the various accounts of the purported conversion in books of Acts and Galatians, as well as in Paul’s own admitted proclivity to lying in order to advance his self-glorifying quasi-religious agenda (Rom 3:7). The book of Acts alone contains 3 disparate versions of the fraudster’s road toDamascus fabrication.
Even among early Christians Paul lacked credibility, hence he desperately cajoled:
What I write is true. Before God I do not lie! - Galatians 1:20
This beggar’s belief!! Having confessed to falsehood (Rom 3:7) and admitted his false preachments aren’t from God (2 Cor 11:17), he invokes the same “God” to cover up his lies.
Other inconsistencies in the New testament narrative of Paul, particularly his alleged persecution of Christians, are beyond the scope of this already lengthy write-up.
Suffice to surmise that Paul’s lack of tangible connection to Jesus as did the chosen 12 apostles who were Paul’s major rivals (2 Cor 11:4-5), adversely affected his credibility among early Christians. Consequently, the blaspheming charlatan concocted the road-to-Damascus canard in which he purportedly met Christ, just so as to boost his (Paul’s) flagging credibility and popularity among early Christians.
Nafata Bamaguje

“Therefore let us abandon the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to more maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works but of faith toward God” – Hebrew 6:1
This is probably the most brazen attack by Paul on the Christianity taught by Jesus. In this verse, Paul had the temerity to imply that Jesus' teaching was immature, while he, Paul was the smart alec to take Christianity to the next level. How right Paul proved to be, for his heretic perversion of Jesus' mission has now become mainstreamChristianity.
As evident from his harangue quoted above,Paul disparaged Jesus' teaching as “repentance from dead works”. But what were the “dead works” Paul denounced ? His rants in his other epistles provide the answer – “works of law”:
“For all who rely on works of the law are cursed” – Galatians 3:10
“For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” – Rom 3:20
“For we believe that a man is justified by faith even without works of law” – Romans 3:28
The “law” of course being traditional Judaic law which Jesus wholeheartedly supported:
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away not an iota, not a dot will change from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever changes one of the least of the commandments, and teaches men so (e.g. Paul), shall be the least in the Kingdom of heaven” – Mathew 5:17-19
“It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot of the law to become void” – Luke 16:17
Thus Jesus not only unequivocally endorsed Mosaic law - stoning to death adulterers anddisobedient children (Deut 22:22, Deut 21:18-21, Matthew 15:4, Mark 7:10); killing Sabbath violators (Exodus 35:2); human sacrifice (Exodus 22:29-30, Ezekiel 20:26); trial by ordeal (Num 5:14-22); killing non-virgin brides (Deut 22:20); marriage by rape (Deut 22:28-29), and other such cruel Sharia-like barbaric laws – he (Jesus) threatened to deal in afterlife with heretics like Paul who preach otherwise (Mathew 5:19).
Jesus would be aghast at today's Paulinists masquerading as Christians, who deride “old school” mosaic law as they are now under the Pauline dispensation of the “grace”:
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works - Ephesians 2:8-9
Paul's doctrine of belief and faith rather than good works brought him into conflict with Jesus' handpicked disciples who knew Jesus personally and better understood his teachings. The apostle James in obvious response to Paul's misleading preachments countered:
“Faith by itself, if it has no works is dead” - James 2:17
“A man is justified by works not faith alone”- James 2:24
“As body without spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead” – James 2:26
Paul himself alluded to this doctrinal confrontation with Jesus' handpicked disciples:
“If someone preaches another Jesus different from the one we preach…if you receive a different gospel from the one you accepted…I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles” - 2 Corinthians 11:4-5
Note Paul's sarcastic derision of Jesus' apostles as “superlative”. More importantly his reference to receiving a “different gospel” in the above verse is quite instructive, for there were indeed numerousgospels (over 50) in early Christianity before Emperor Constantine compelled the Church elders at the second Council of Nicea (325 AD) to arbitrarily select the four that are now included in the standardized Christian Bible.
Apparently Pauline Christianity used different gospels from Judeo-Christianity preached by Jesus' apostles. The gospels of the Hebrews, Thomas, Clement and second apocalypse of James were among the earliest Christian scriptures and were used by the then prevalent Judeo-Christian faction.
Pauline Christianity which was initially fringecult only became ascendant after the 70AD Roman destruction of the Jerusalem temple in response to a Jewish revolt against Roman rule. This resistance to Roman rule was actually what the biblical Jesus stood for, and for which he was executed when heattempted to seize power from the Romans as “King of the Jews” (Luke 19.38, Matthew 21:5-9), in order to restore traditional Judaism.
Thereafter the original Judeo-Christianity was crushed and the pro-establishment Pauline Christianity (Rom 13:12) which was later adopted as the official religion of Romebecame ascendant, with Paul supposedly authoring most of the books in the New Testament that now define Christianity.
To avoid the terminal fate that befell Judeo-Christianity which was crushed by Rome, Paul the loyal Roman citizen Paul advised:
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing (Roman) authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority (of Rome) is rebelling against what God has instituted,and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” - Romans 13:1-2
Pauline Christianity is actually a paganised distortion of Judaism, as the Christ described in the New testament gospels was plagiarized from pre-Christian pagan cultures of the Middle East. Mithra, Dionysus and Osiris were all pre-Christian pagan deities (ancient Persian, Greek and Egyptian) that were born of virgins, died and resurrected, with their resurrection signifying some sort of redemption. The birthdays of Mithra and Dionysius were bothDecember 25th!!
Since Pauline Christianity was mainly addressed to non-Jews (Acts 22:21, 26:18), it is not at all surprising that gentile pagan myths and practices found their way into the New testament and Christianity. Even the Christian worship day (Sunday) is not theBiblical Sabbath (Saturday), but the worship day for the Roman sun deity – Sol Invictus - as was decreed by Emperor Constantine.
NB: Bible quotes are from Revised Standard Version.
Nafata Bamaguje

rhymz: [/color][color=#990000]Thank You very much for you very mature response. Actually, I am neither of the authors but I share strongly their views and findings.
Like you have already stated this is going to be straight to the point, no sentiments, I will like us to root our arguments from both biblical accounts as well as the History of our religion.
Now, to your points for the most part, we are on the same page, however your interpretations of Nos: 8, 9 and 10 are a little bit too simplistic but as we go further in the debate I belief you will understand better.
Looking forward to your responses and having a robust theological debate. Thank You.

Mr_Anony:
according to you..........

Paul distorted Christianity because

1.He preaches a different gospel from Christ and the apostles and says Jesus' teachings are immature {Heb 6:1}
2.He preaches salvation by grace through faith alone and denounces the law(good works) {Gal 3:10}
3.He was in some sort of rivalry with the apostles (in fact some apostles opposed his teachings) and he downplays the authority of the apostles having no real authority himself {2Cor 11:4-5}

The above are what I consider as your main points. Other points that interest me include:

4.Jesus fully sanctioned mosaic law {Matt 5:17-19}
5.Peter and the apostles were opposed to Paul. James was opposed to Paul, his "faith without works is dead" was a rebuke to Paul's teachings {James 2:17-26, Acts 21:21}
6.Jesus stood for the resistance to Roman rule in order to restore Judaism hence he was crucified as "King of the Jews"{Luke19:38, Matt 21:5-9}
7.There are two different forms of Christianity: Pauline-Christianity (which originated from Paul and is corrupted with gnostic influences and - among other things - changes the true worship day 'saturday' which is the sabbath to 'sunday' in reverence to a sun god) and Judeo-Christianity (the original gospel of Christ and the apostles). i.e Judeo-Christianity is right while Pauline Christianity is wrong.
*8.Paul was a homosexual{Rom 7:1}
9.Paul is a self admitted liar hence none of his words should be trusted {Rom 3:7}
10.Paul's conversion is a fabricated lie and he gives 3 different accounts of his conversion in Acts and Galatians {No scriptural reference provided}


* number 8 was not stated but insinuated

He preaches salvation by grace through faith alone and denounces the law(good works) {Gal 3:10}

He was in some sort of rivalry with the apostles (in fact some apostles opposed his teachings) and he downplays the authority of the apostles having no real authority himself {2Cor 11:4-5}

Jesus fully sanctioned mosaic law {Matt 5:17-19}

Peter and the apostles were opposed to Paul. James was opposed to Paul, his "faith without works is dead" was a rebuke to Paul's teachings {James 2:17-26, Acts 21:21}

Jesus stood for the resistance to Roman rule in order to restore Judaism hence he was crucified as "King of the Jews"{Luke19:38, Matt 21:5-9}

There are two different forms of Christianity: Pauline-Christianity (which originated from Paul and is corrupted with gnostic influences and - among other things - changes the true worship day 'saturday' which is the sabbath to 'sunday' in reverence to a sun god) and Judeo-Christianity (the original gospel of Christ and the apostles). i.e Judeo-Christianity is right while Pauline Christianity is wrong.

*8.Paul was a homosexual{Rom 7:1}

Paul is a self admitted liar hence none of his words should be trusted {Rom 3:7}

Paul's conversion is a fabricated lie and he gives 3 different accounts of his conversion in Acts and Galatians {No scriptural reference provided}

Mr_Anony: Hello Rhymz,

I have been waiting for quite sometime now (a week) for your response but it has not been forthcoming. Am I to assume that you have found my words to be true? If this is so, then I give praise to God for revealing the truth to you (I believe you have studied scripture to come to such a conclusion and not merely taken my words for it). If it is so that you now have found it to be true through scripture that Paul really did not in any way distort christianity, then please I implore you to be noble enough to publicly renounce the statements of Nafata and Lewis that you once stood by and declare them to be the heresies they really are in light of your new-found truth. God bless you.

Mr_Anony:

For numbers 8,9,10. I would rather you gave me a series of statements better defining your stance, however these are my thoughts.

8. I'll dismiss this as rubbish because the author has no proof whatsoever besides it is irrelevant to the topic and only serves as a way to maliciously undermine Paul. The best reasons he could come up with were that Paul never married and made "condescending" remarks about women choosing cleverly to forget that Paul spoke against homosexuality.
9. Romans 3:7 was used out of context here. in the passage, Paul isn't making statements but is asking rhetorical questions. Read Rom 3:1-8 to put it in context or better still read the whole of chapter 3.

Mr_Anony:


There is no such thing as two types of christianity! (I think I have sufficiently thrashed the issue of "Jesus vs Paul). Now as for the sunday vs saturday issue, I ask does it really matter which day one worships God? It is such a petty issue it shouldn't really be worth any contention. As for Paul being corrupted by gnostic influences, this is simply false accusation since the apostles approved of Paul's teaching and preached the same. 1John 4:1-3 tells us how to test the spirits, Paul is not a heretic. 1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 1Jn 4:3 and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. For numbers 8,9,10. I would rather you gave me a series of statements better defining your stance, however these are my thoughts.

rhymz:
The Suggestion that Paul was a gay man is usually met most often with responsel ranging from pure dismissal to outright anger. I know the idea that a writer of the Scriptures, which are considered to be the direct Word of God in much of Christianity, could be gay is startling to say the least. However, it is still important that we rid ourselves of emotinal outburst and critically look at the issues.No doubt, Paul was a very dramatic man, deeply convicted and emotional.
In fact, his overly emotional nature should cause a stir as he lived in a society that did not look kindly upon such emotional display. But this in and of itself could simply be a unique trait possessed by Paul, not necessarily representative of his orientation. However, his stark emotionality leaves him more vulnerable to the probing of a textual critic, making our exploration a bit simpler. Looking at Paul's letter to the Romans, Paul’s last before his (presumable) execution. In this letter, he gives one a slight clue to the battle going on within him.
Allow me to quote an English translation of his words in Romans 7:23: “…I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members”. This passage reveals more than we might first notice upon first reading. On a closer look, one discovers that Paul speaks in the larger context of this chapter about a constant war. He claims sin dwells in his “members,” or his bodily parts.
However, he attempts to control these members with the “law of his mind” that seems to be often failing him.
Expectedly, you will want to explain this to be merely a passage referring to the human struggle with sin, however, bringing in other elements of the Paul's letters, such interpretation becomes a bit lacking. In his earlier and 2nd letters to Corinthians, one notices yet another clue in this intriguing puzzle in chapter12:7 NASB and I quote: “there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me”, now put this passage in a larger context and try to decipher what he was trying to say.
In the opening chapter of Romans, Paul describes those he sees as the enemies of God as being confused sexually as a punishment for their sins. In his letter, he says that “God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (Romans 1:26-27 NASB). This seems a bit odd as Jesus is not seen as discussing sexual orientation, a subject one would believe he would preach during his discussions regarding sexual indiscretion, assuming that he considered the actions or state of gay individuals as being sinful. It is important to remember that Paul views himself as a representative of Jesus, so this contrast should of course cause a stir in the reader. This is not the only time Paul is seen displaying tendencies that can only be described as homophobic. He makes what appear to be negative statements toward gay individuals in his first letter to the Corinthians. It is, however, worth noting that the concept of sexual orientation had not yet developed, so such verses refer to lust and sex as stand alone sins, not in any way connected with a concept of sexual orientation. Keep this in mind as we continue to examine the issues at hand. Aside from the homophobia displayed in the Pauline letters, another often- overlooked trend becomes noticeable upon careful reading. Paul seems to take a negative view of women and marriage. He writes to his male readers, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1 NASB). Paul was not married as he directly states when he gives these instructions to the unmarried and widow in 1 Corinthians 1:8 NASBs: “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I”. Marriage is seen by Paul as a last resort for weak individuals in the next passage, 1 Corinthians 1:9 NASB “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion”. One is probably now wondering why Paul would feel the need to create such a defensive web of misogyny and anti- marriage bias if Jesus did not seem to have an issue with gay individuals.
Let's not forget the fact that Paul knows very well how Judaic laws frowns at adultry. So while Paul is responsible for the propagation of Christianity, he was writing with the perspective of a convert who was previously an extremely dedicated and educated expert on traditional Jewish laws.
To indulge his passions, were he gay, would have been a grave sin.
Now that I have considered this array of clues from Paul’s writings, it becomes important to finish addressing the passage with which I began my study of Paul's writing. Talking about “war” in Paul’s “members.” There is a strong possibilty that this war in his members is thesame thing he meant by “thorn in his flesh” that served as a “messenger of Satan.” Whether or not it is the case, the question still remains… What part of the body will not obey the “law of the mind?" You and I know it is the Pen.i$, Looking at the anatomy of a male. Arms, legs, and the like can be controlled by the mind. The pen.i$ remains the member that often is not so easily controlled by the mind. Obviously, this is the member that I believe Paul was referring.
And considering the other segments we have examined, I also believe that Paul was in fact a repressed gay individual. While this cannot be proven, it does seem one of the few answers that properly fits the questions raised by the evidence. If Paul was a gay man, a drastic rereading of Scripture would be demanded in light of such a discovery.

rhymz: In response to this, I will like to exhausitively point out bible passage that made it very clear that Paul and the disciples of christ never agreed and had serious doctrinal disagreement contrary to popular beliefs.
When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Paul has been preaching a different doctrine in Galatia and Corinthia-Paul was telling them not to follow the law anymore and that they don’t have to eat meat anymore or to be circumcised, these teachings ran contrary to Genesis 17:14, the covenant is broken if there is no circumcision.
So the Apostles went to Galatia and Corinthia and convinced everyone that Paul was wrong, when Paul heard about this he went straight back to the cities…
Paul sensing how these Apostles from Jerusalem were making a mockery of his own version of Jesus's teaching had this to say to the Galatians in chapter 1vs6 and I quote: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a DIFFERENT GOSPEL"
note the capitalized phrase "different gospel", obviously paul's teachings in Galatia and Corinthia were not thesame thing being taught by the desciples and brother of christ James and this disagreement was not minor as the book of Acts tries to paint it as we would come to see later in his letter to Galatia that the disagreement was very serious.
In Galatian 2vs11-21
In this chapter and verses, any unbias reader can tell that there is a fundamental doctrinal misunderstanding between what Paul was teaching and the understanding of Peter and Barnabas of with regards to what Christ's teachings were all about.
Paul condemns all Jewish Christians including Peter and Barnabas. And let's not forget that all what one has is only Paul’s side of the story but Peter’s recollection of this story is not given to us in the New Testament (perhaps that was conveniently left out for a reason) . Peter truly would have known Jesus better than Paul because Paul with all his claims never met or saw Jesus till he died. Also, there is dispute whether 1 Peter is a letter written by Peter and almost all scholars, ancient and modern agree that 2 Peter is not a letter written by Peter.
In Acts 4:31 luke gives an account of how John and Peter prayed to God for guidance and boldness to preach in the name of christ even after being warned the priests and the other leaders to desist from doing so. Now this account tells us that they were filled with the holy spirit as they prayed, If Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit then why is Paul calling Peter a hypocrite for eating with the Gentiles and then when people came from James he got up.
James is Jesus’ half brother, he lived and stayed with Jesus. Why did he still think that people still have to eat meat?
Again we don’t have any account of Peter’s story regarding this incident. Barnabas is also called a hypocrite in verse Galatian2:13.
Look how in verses 15 through 17,
Paul is arguing with them about the law. That means the disciples wanted to follow the law and suggested following it. Otherwise Paul wouldn’t have mentioned it. How could he say those things to Peter when Jesus said this to Peter in matthew 6vs18: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it". Every time I read this passage, I am always tempted to question the authenticity of Paul's conversion and the belief by today's preachers that Paul got a higher revelation of christ's mission superior to those of his disciples who followed him around, heard his teachings, understood his mission and the his ideologies. It is laughable that anyone will believe that Paul got a spiritually superior message of christ's mission. Notice how he rarely talks about Jesus's teachings but concentrates on very different teachings that boarders on a decine atonement through a belief in death and ressurection of Jesus christ, a teaching very similar the myth of Roman gods Osiri and co. How their violent death brought atonement of sins to those that worshipped them.
How come Jesus was silent about his own mission according to Paul's teachings?
Everything Paul taught was in complete disagreement with what Jesus is known to have preached. He was a heretic and unfortunately his teachings form the basis of today's faith based christianity, little wonder the majority of christiandom has not made ant serious improvement spiritually cos Pauline's teachings contrated mostly on belief and strongly opposes work.
Let's see further how his teachings continued to contradict his claims of teaching about Jesus.
In Romans 14:20 paul teaches: "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble"
Meanwhile In the Book of Acts 15:29 the Apostles wrote a letter to the gentiles to abstain from certain foods and that not all foods were declared clean: "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell".
Paul sensing that the Gentiles were begining to listen to the appostles
could'nt hide his anger when in Galatian 3:1-3 he wrote: You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish?
Obviously Paul was having problems convincing people of his very strange teachings. There were people that were disagreeing with him. If Jesus taught that the law was over clearly, then people would not be arguing over this.
It is very evident that there was disagreement even though the christian xhurch likes to paint a different picture.

rhymz: Expectedly, like I said earlier, the suggestion is bound to leave a very sour and annoying taste in the tongue of many Pauline christian adherents who had hitherto never scrutinized what Paul was trying say in those chapters and verses(but did not have the guts to be explicit enough) but now have to be forced to look at it again.

You claim that the thorn in his flesh could have been his eyes or ears. Do you honestly believe that? Or that was just a weak rebuttal to a suggestion you fear you may find unbelievably true upon careful textual study of those chapters and verses.
Now tell me Mr Anonym if Paul was referring to his eyes or ears as being an agent of temptation that torments him would he have described them as a "thorn in his flesh and a messenger of satan to sent torment him"? So in your own wise interpretation, God cursed man with eyes and ears to be tormented by what they see and hear, realy
When did the eyes and ears become thorns in one's flesh that was sent by the devil to torment a person? Does that even make sense to you, be honest with yourself.
I understand how annoying this issue is but do you realy believe he was not talking about an arousal which unlike his eyes and ears could'nt realy be controlled.

And you dare try to downplay the obvious by ridiculously itemizing my reasons like they held no meaning as to why he could have been a repressed homosexual?
You did not even give any counter argument all you did was give the typical dismissive response typical of intellectually lazy christians that will rather they conform than understand the bible they use in telling every other person they are not saved until they believe in Paul's own explanation of Jesus christ.

A repressed homosexuals will never openly admit that he is aroused by thoughts of other men's physical anatomy, that is a fact. The fact that Paul strangely was always talking about homosexual desires and how people who gave in to it are acursed even though Jesus nor his disciples never addressed such issues tells a thing or two about what goes on in his mind. Whatever thoughts that were going on in his mind causing a member of his body to give in and go against the law was obviously oppressed even though they kept on coming.
And the fact that he never saw the need to get married and viewed marriage as an option for the weak narrow it down to homosexual feelings stirring in his heart.
You don't have to agree with me but don't try to defend the indefensible either, it makes you come across as not being objective; emotional arguments wont do either.