29 Apr
P writing blue

Image via Wikipedia

Lets take a look at what a few other people have to say about Paul.

Please read to the end because it’s quite enlightening to see what so many ‘credible people’ have to say about him.

In the book ‘Christ or Paul?’, the Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore wrote:
“Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught. For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message. That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world. The teachings given by the blessed Master Christ, which the disciples John and Peter and James, the brother of the Master, tried in vain to defend and preserve intact were as utterly opposed to the Pauline Gospel as the light is opposed to the darkness.”

The great Mahatma Gandhi, the prophet of nonviolence who won freedom from England for India in an essay titled “Discussion on Fellowship”, wrote:
“I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus and the Letters of Paul. Paul’s Letters are a graft on Christ’s teachings, Paul’s own gloss apart from Christ’s own experience.”

Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence; he wrote in his “Letter to William Short”:
“Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

The theologian Soren Kierkegaard, writing in ‘The Journals’, observes:
“In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ”

The renowned English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, in his ‘Not Paul But Jesus’, declared:
“It rests with every professor of the religion of Jesus to settle within himself to which of the two religions, that of Jesus or that of Paul he will adhere.”

Robert Frost, winner of the Pulitzer prize for poetry in 1924,1931,1937 and 1943, in his “A Masque of Mercy”, wrote:
“Paul he’s in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him.”

James Baldwin, the most noted black American author of this century, in his book ‘The Fire Next Time’, declared:
“The real architect of the Christian church was not the disreputable, sunbaked Hebrew (Jesus Christ) who gave it its name but rather the mercilessly fanatical and self-righteous Paul”

The theologian Ernest Renan, in his book ‘Saint Paul’, wrote:
“True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock. The causes of the principal defects of Christian theology.”

The American philosopher, Will Durant; in his ‘Caesar and Christ’, wrote:
“Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ. Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known. Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change.”

The famous theologian Helmut Koester, in his ‘The Theological Aspects of Primitive Christian Heresy’:
“Paul himself stands in the twilight zone of heresy. In reading Paul, one immediately encounters a major difficulty. Whatever Jesus had preached did not become the content of the missionary proclamation of Paul. Sayings of Jesus do not play a role in Paul ‘s understanding of the event of salvation. Paul did not care at all what Jesus had said. Had Paul been completely successful very little of the sayings of Jesus would have survived.”

Martin Buber, the Jewish philosopher, wrote in ‘Two Types of Faith’:
“The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul”

The famous mystic, poet and author, Kahil Gibran, declared in ‘Jesus the Son of Man’:
“This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name of One whom he does not know”.

The eminent theologian Ferdinand Christian Baur, in his ‘Church History of the First Three Centuries’, wrote:
“What kind of authority can there be for an ‘apostle’ who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus’ own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the lift of Jesus….He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears.”

Carl Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist, wrote in his essay “A Psychological Approach to Dogma”:
“Saul’s [Paul’s name before his conversion] fanatical resistance to Christianity….was never entirely overcome. It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in.”

George Bernard Shaw, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925; in his ‘Androcles and the Lion’, we read:
“There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus….There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul’s soul upon the soul of Jesus….It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus, was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith.”

Albert Schweitzer, winner of the 1952 Nobel Peace Prize, in his ‘The Quest for the Historical Jesus and his Mysticism of Paul’ he writes:
“Paul did not desire to know Christ. Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded. What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus? The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic, and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.”

William Wrede, in his book ‘Paul’, informs us:
“The oblivious contradictions in the three accounts given by Paul in regard to his conversion are enough to arouse distrust. The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for Paul’s Christology nothing whatsoever. The name ‘disciple of Jesus’ has little applicability to Paul. Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the present day”

Rudolf Bultman, a theologian, wrote in his ‘Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul’:
“It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his views. When the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus’ teaching is — to all intents and purposes — irrelevant for Paul.”

Walter Bauer, an eminent theologian, wrote in his ‘Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity’:
“If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly, the Apostle Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age.”

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, in ‘Paul: Roman Agent or Informer’, wrote:
“…his [Paul ‘s] teachings — which become the foundation of later Christianity — are a flagrant deviation from the ‘original’ or ‘pure’ form extolled by the leadership. James, the Lord’s brother, knew Jesus personally. So did most of the other members of the community or ‘early church’ in Jerusalem — including, of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first-hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the ‘Savior’. For Paul to arrogate authority to himself, is to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus’ teachings beyond all recognition — to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus. Paul knows full well what he is doing. He understands the techniques of religious propaganda.”

Rev. V.A. Holmes-Gore writes in ‘Christ or Paul’:
“The triumph of Paul’s Gospel is all the more remarkable in view of the Master’s repeated warnings that false teachers would arise immediately after his ‘going away’. Thus we read in Matthew: ‘Beware of false prophets. which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits ye shall know them. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom, of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.’ This warning fits Paul. who taught that entry into the kingdom of Heaven depends upon faith. i.e. by calling Jesus “Lord. Lord’. and did not teach the pure way of lift by which alone man can enter the kingdom. And if we apply to Paul the test ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’ it is abundantly clear that he was a false prophet”

Chris Bennett observes in ‘Green Gold the Tree of Life’:
“Their systems were cannibalized and absorbed into the Roman Catholic Church — the Church of Paul. The Roman Catholic Church (the Paulist Church) erased and reinterpreted much of the information regarding Christ’s true gospel”

Gene Savoy; in his ‘The Essaei Document’, we read:
“Paul’s Christianity is another matter. He taught a different kind of theology than that shared by the original disciples. who were schooled under Jesus. Moreover, James, Peter and the disciples were members of the Essaei community, which Paul most assuredly was not. We see then, that Paul was the father of Pagan Christianity [Roman Catholicism] a movement based on a concept completely foreign to Jesus, James, Peter and the Essaci community. The teachings of Jesus the Messiah were overshadowed by the teachings of Paul”

Here is another quote from George Bernard Shaw:
“The conversion of Paul was no conversion at all: it was Paul who converted the religion that has raised one man above sin and death into a religion that delivered millions of men so completely into their dominion that their own common nature became a horror to them, and the religious life became a denial of life.”

This one is from Thomas Paine:
“Paul’s writing is no better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told.”

Now that we have discovered the truth about Paul

There must be one question that is on the tip of your tongue……what next?

That’s simple really.

Now that we have the Anti-Christ exposed and out of the way.

Let’s do what we should have done right from the start.

Let’s take a look at what Jesus has to say

To be continued……

Leave a comment

Posted by on April 29, 2011 in THOUGHTS


Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: