IS it possible that Paul was just a failed Pharisee that

by confusedandalone 56 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  confusedandalone

  saw an opening?

  If we look at Christianity it appears that Pauls teaching are what formulate it and not Jesus. Paul often contradicts the words that are "supposedly" spoken by Jesus repeatedly. Looking at the books Paul wrote his gives shout outs to random people / homies for no reason. Do we really believe that a GOD would sanction this?

  Christianity as instructed by Christ was simple... "Paulinity" or what Paul wrote seems to be just a slightly diff version of Judaism - aka Judaism light.

  PJesus made things simple but Paul brings in a low level form of Judaism.... a bunch of unnecessary rules similar to what he no doubt learned at the feet of Gamaliel(sp).

  THe moer you look at the bible the less inspired it appears to be. How can one be a CHristian yet follow the words and teaching of someone that contradict what Jesus wrote. Wouldn't one think that the Messiahs words would be enough. AFterall he is the son of GOD - why wwould he need another person to further excplain what he wanted to express?
• 

  steve2

  Well he was an ex-pharisee so that comes pretty close to being a failed pharisee. He pretty much tied Christianity down with a bunch of opinionated rules that have spread their pharisiacal miasma across the deadening globe ever since.

  Christ gave us the Sermon on the Mount - a breath of fresh air to last centuries; Paul gave us the epistles - enough oppression to keep the legalistic bent going for sect after sect after sect after sect after sect.

  Thanks Paul. Next time don't get so blinded by the light. Thank you.
• 

  confusedandalone

  it really is a shame... As you stated the sermon on the mount truly is a simplistic way to live compared to what the people were accustomed to...

  then this wackadoodle comes along and says hey Jesus the son of god forgot to tell you a few things... So let me complete his thoughts. It really is pathetic
• 

  jam

  Paul was a opportunist. The bible have four distinct parts, OT, Jesus,

  Paul and Rev.
• 

  Comatose

  Was it Marcion who only accepted the gospels and like two other books? Great minds have noticed this before. It is odd how Jesus kept it simple and real and then Paul saw Jesus in a vision and the rest is history.

  funny that Jesus did away with religion and it's pomp and then Paul came along and invented the Catholic Church.
• 

  Jeffro

  confusedandalone:

  saw an opening?

  Absolutely.

  The stories about Jesus were cobbled together from earlier myths from other civilisations along with supposed 'fulfilments' of 'prophecies' (many of which were never even intended as 'prophecies' at all).

  Paul came along, co-opted stories about Jesus and shoe-horned in his own teachings into his new quasi-Judaism. (It's probably more correct to say he shoe-horned stuff about Jesus into his own teachings.)

  Centuries later, the Romans saw 'Christianity' as a means to maintain control of the empire.

  And here we are.
• 

  confusedandalone

  ts funny as a jw I just stopped seeing the bible as one coherent book and just picked verses that made sense for a situation.

  looking at the bible as a whole it makes no sense that all the books are in the same cover
• 

  braincleaned

  Paul should have gotten laid — his writings would have been a lot cooler.
• 

  Captain Blithering

  It's amazing what a changed viewpoint a little distance gives you....
• 

  designs

  Studying "Paul" through the eyes of a Rabbi is a mind blower.