Paul: How He Invented The Current Christian Faith

[ronniv93]

All of a sudden Paul becomes "Immediately" an expert in Christianity & begins preaching it!

IMHO, the writer of this article is adding to the text. Nowhere does it say “Paul becomes ‘immediately’ an expert in Christianity”. It says that “Immediately”, he began to preach; nothing about being a so-called “expert”. I don’t know why he felt he needed to even make this comment.


Are all new Muslims told to “shut up” and keep their mouths shut until they become “experts” before they begin telling others what they know? I don’t think so. That is evident even on this discussion board.

And what does he preach: that Jesus is the son of God. Who taught him that? Where has he learned the principles of his preachings?

Does the author, here, forget that Paul was a Jew who persecuted Christians before? Why would he have done that? On what basis? On the basis that Paul KNEW what the Christians believed and taught and in his mind, at that time, it was wrong. Christianity, was spreading throughout the lands and began among the Jews themselves. So, why would the author think that Paul had never heard this before?


And as for “who taught him that”, perhaps he got it from these stories which, no doubt, were repeated among the disciples in their meetings/gatherings and even when they preached to others.






<b> Mt 27:43</b>. "HE TRUSTS IN GOD; LET GOD RESCUE Him now, IF HE DELIGHTS IN HIM; <b>for He said, `I am the Son of God.' " </b>


<b> Mt 27:54</b>. Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, <b>"Truly this was the Son of God!"</b>


<b>Mk 1:1</b>. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, <b>the Son of God.</b>


<b>Mk. 3:11</b>. Whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they would fall down before Him and shout, <b>"You are the Son of God!"</b>


<b>Lk. 1:35 </b>. The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason <b>the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.</b>


<b>Lk. 22:70</b>. And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am."


<b>Jn. 3:18</b>. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten <b>Son of God</b>.



I could really go on and on as there are MANY more passages than this, but I think I’ve made the point.

Also, there is a historic flop as Damascus did not have synagogues at the time being an enemy of the Jews."

I wish that I could speak to the writer directly and ask him to furnish some evidence that there were no synagogues at this time. All I have right now is his personal assertion.


Nevertheless, the word “synagogue” does not refer only to a physical building, which I have to assume is what the writer is referring to. Any congregation or gathering of Jews for prayer, worship, etc. is called a “synagogue”. The use of the word “church” is similar. “Church” does not only make reference to a physical structure. Any Christian anywhere in the world is considered to be part of “the church”. Any gathering of Christian believers for the purpose of worship, prayer, praise, etc. is considered a “church” gathering.


He disputed with the Hellenists [Greeks] & they tried to kill him. When the brothers learned of this, they brought him to Caesarea & sent him to Tarsus."


One small remark, the occupants (at that time) were Romans & not Greeks!


Well, why did the author, then, translate “Hellenists” as Greeks? That’s not in the text. Again, looking at the original Greek textual word, we see what the term REALLY means:


1. A Hellenist


a. one who imitates the manners and customs or the worship of the Greeks, and use the Greek tongue


b. used in the NT of Jews born in foreign lands and speaking Greek


You don’t even really need a Biblical dictionary to get this definition. Anyone anywhere in the world can go to www.dictionary.com and look up the same word and see the same definitions.

And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" Acts 11: 26. Isn't this strange? Jesus never gave his message, followers & disciples a particular name during his stay on earth.  Now, several years after his ascent to heaven, there comes someone whom Jesus never met: a zealot enemy of his message who suddenly turns towards it because of an alleged vision of Jesus. Out of a sense of self-guilt & repentance for his previous attitudes or out of a cunning desire to degrade the message of its forgiving humble goodness content, this man (Paul) begins preaching a new religion exalting Jesus to the divine levels of God & <b>gives it the name (Christianity) that the founder of it dared never use; a name implying that followers now worship Christ rather than the Creator of Christ, the Almighty God</b>.

And where, might I ask, did the author get ALL these assumptions?? First of all, The text of Acts 11:26 nowhere says that Paul gave the disciples this name. Second of all, in studying the history of the Faith we call Christianity, we find out that it was actually NON-CHRISTIANS who first used that name and it was used in a derogatory manner against the disciples. It was a name meant to poke fun at them for imitating or following the way and life of Christ. So, Paul did not coin this name.


At this point, the author again makes more ugly statements about a person he has no real knowledge of, saying that Paul had a “cunning desire to degrade the message”. Well, what gives him the right to make THAT kind of statement? He doesn’t even prove this condemnation to be true.


Also, it is his own fault if he assumes that the name “Christian” implies that people “now worship Christ RATHER than the Creator of Christ.” I have never heard anyone come away with this interpretation until now, so that’s his own issue and no one else’s.

Furthermore, Paul disobeys the rules of preaching that his master had set, he preaches to non-Jews (Gentiles) & in a land far up north of where Jesus intended his message to be confined; "Jesus said 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel'" Mathew: 15: 24.

Wrong. Jesus says that <b>HE</b> was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, true although Jesus never refused to teach, minister to, heal, etc. anyone who came to Him out of faith, even if they were non-Jews[/i/]. Christ was only here on earth, preaching, for about 3 ½ years. His earthly mission was to deliver the message to those who had been stewards over the oracles of God – the Jews. I wish the author had gone on to quote Matthew 28:18-20 where Jesus COMMANDS the disciples to go into all the world and make disciples. There were no “rules for preaching”. This is a concept that the author himself has apparently made up.

4. While preaching in Cyprus, together with Barnabas, the Holy Book tells us that Saul has suddenly changed his name to Paul & no reasons are given, "Then Saul, who also is called Paul, became filled with the Holy spirit.." Acts 13: 9.

So what?


People’s name often changed when they became followers of the Lord. As far back as Abraham, we see this. Abraham was originally known as Abram and his wife was called Sarai. When God called them, their names were changed to Abraham and Sarah.


Jacob’s name was changed to “Israel”.


Jesus changed the names of one of His disciples.


Don’t even many Muslims change their names when they become Muslim? Especially if their given name has a bad meaning. I don’t understand why this was even brought up as an issue.

So what does this Saul or Paul say about his origin? We become really very much confused about a man who seems not to know his origin (or is deliberately changing or hiding it), a man who is sainted & considered the founder of the current Christian faith by most Christians.

More with the personal attacks and accusations. But let’s see where the author gets confused.

In Acts 16: 37 we find that Paul is Roman, "But Paul said to them, "They have beaten us publicly without being condemned in any trial even though we are Romans."

No problem so far.

In Acts 21: 37 Paul is thought to be an Egyptian, but he addresses the Jerusalem mob saying that he is a Jew from Tarsus; "

As I said earlier, so what? Because some people THOUGHT Paul was an Egyptian, that somehow proves that Paul was trying to deceive people about his identity?


He simply replies back that he is a Jew. No contradictions at all so far.

Then as Paul was about to be led to the barracks, he asked the commander in Greek, 'May I say something to you?' The commander said, "Do you speak Greek? Aren't you the Egyptian who sometime ago stirred up a revolt & led 4000 terrorists out into the desert?' Paul answered, 'I am a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia…"

This is the same as the last statement. Another man thinks Paul is an Egyptian, but he corrects him by saying that he is a Jew.


You can study history and find out that there was an Egyptian living at the time who claimed to be a prophet and started a revolt leading a group known as the “Assassins”. The centurion thought that Paul might be this man, but Paul again corrects him.

In Acts 22: 25-28 Paul again insists that he was Roman, not a one who obtained the citizenship but born Roman, " As Paul was bound with thongs to be flogged, he said to the centurion [commander of 100 soldiers] who stood by, ' Is it lawful for you to scourge a Roman citizen who hasn't been found guilty?'…. the commander said to him, 'Are you Roman?' Paul said, 'Yes.' The commander said, 'I had to pay a big price to obtain my Roman citizenship.' And Paul said, 'But I was born a citizen [Roman]."

I have yet to see why the author is so confused. Could it be that he is simply TRYING to make the Bible look confusing when it’s really not?

Still, for more confusion, in Acts 23: 6 Paul shouts out loud that he is a Pharisee! " But when Paul perceived that some of the members of the Sanhedrin [high Jewish council] were Sadducees & the others Pharisees [2 different Jewish creeds], he cried out in the council 'My brothers I am a Pharisee & the son of a Pharisee.."

What exactly is the problem?


He is showing me that he doesn’t seem to have even a basic level of understanding. A Jew at that time was primarily a Jew by descent, by birth. They followed the Torah and Tanach. So, the religion was primarily confined to people of this particular race, that is of Hebrew descent. A Pharisee was simply a religious teacher BUT YET OF THE JEWISH FAITH. The fact that he was born a Roman citizen does not contradict this. J This is silly, actually.


It’s like saying that a person can’t be an Arab and yet be born in America. Isn’t that stupid?


One is a RACE and the other is a GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION.

5. To carry on with Paul's story (according to Acts), in Jerusalem Paul was arrested in the temple by Jews from Asia shouting…..

At this point, the author just goes into a loooooonnnnnggg section that seems to have nothing to do with anything as far as I can tell, so I’ll skip that part.

6. It is noticed that Paul has introduced in his preachings a lot of new rituals & beliefs that Jesus never preached. He told the Jews & Gentiles to turn away from Moses laws (commandments) [Acts 21: 21],

Is he deliberately misrepresenting the text? The passage does not SAY that Paul told Jews and Gentiles to turn away from the law of Moses. Another person came to TELL Paul that THAT was what OTHER people were saying ABOUT him.

especially circumcision (Acts 15:2).

This passage does not say that either. The chapter begins by saying that there was some group or sect of people who came teaching that one could not be SAVED unless they were circumcised. So, the matter was put to the apostles and elders to address. And it is <b>PETER</b> who stands and reiterates the point that all men are saved by <b>GRACE</b> and this was proven by the fact that even Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit APART from being circumcised. In this chapter, Paul does not directly address the topic of circumcision at all!

He was a hypocrite that talked to every sect in the way they believe, as when he circumcised his follower Timothy (Acts 16:3)

No, Timothy was circumcised because they knew that this issue was still a cause of stumbling for certain Jews.

while preaching among the Jews of Derbe & Lystra (despite being against circumcision Galatians 5:2/3:12);

Those passages do not say that Paul is against circumcision. His belief is that circumcision DOES NOT SAVE a person. He says that circumcision does not BENEFIT a person, because we are saved THROUGH FAITH, according to Gal. 5. Galatians chapter 3 does not even have the word circumcision or circumcised in it, so I don’t know where his reference came from.

& as he did with the Greeks in Athens when he felt distressed by the many idol statues he saw there & yet when he preached the Athenians he told them that the altar they had on which is inscribed "To an unknown God" could be worshiped as The Almighty God creator of the world (Acts 17: 16-25) .

I’m about 2 steps away from concluding that this author is intentionally trying to mislead.


In no way, shape or form does Paul tell anyone to worship some altar. It <b>distressed</b> him to SEE the idol worship. He TAKES NOTE OF an altar with this inscription written on it and then begins to PROCLAIM to them WHO the true God is. He didn’t tell them that this piece of stone could be worshipped as God. Where did he get this from????

Other signs of his hypocrisy are encountered in his praise for the Old Testament (Moses law) when he is addressing Jews [as in Romans 1:16/2:13/3:31/7:12], yet he degrades the book & the law when talking to non-Jews [Galatians 2:16/3:1-3/3:11-12/3:19/4:5].

He NEVER degrades the Law. Another false statement.

He introduced some pagan rituals into Christianity {as offering sacrifice, Acts 14:13

What is he talking about? Paul is not shown in this passage as “introducing” anything. The verse actually says “<b>The priest of Zeus</b>, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and <b>wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.</b>” He came out saying this because Paul had just healed a man who had been lame (i.e., unable to walk) since his birth. The people of that town then thought that Paul and Barnabas were gods, so they came out to make sacrifice to them.


Let’s look at Paul’s reaction:

Acts 14:14  But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out 
Acts 14:15 and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things ? We are also men of the same nature as you, and preach the gospel to you that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, WHO MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM.

Paul is <b>STOPPING</b> them; <b>PLEADING</b> with them not to do this. He argues that he and Barnabas are just men, same as they are and points them back to the God who created the heaven, earth and see and all that is in them.

and forming churches & churchmen hierarchy, Acts 14:23/20:28,

He didn’t “form” or establish “churchmen hierarchy”. The text does not even specifically say WHO set this up. But does it not make some sense? When you have a large community of people (whether religious or not), there needs to be some structure to everything or else there is chaos and nothing gets done. OR you end up with heretics among you. God Himself established structure and hierarchy back in the days of Moses.

and also in Turkey (Corinth & Ephesus) when he found that disciples of John the Baptist had preceded them there preaching the true religion, he invented the ritual of receiving the Holy Spirit in baptization, Acts 19}.

Hehehehehe. . . . Now, this one was funny. It actually made me laugh. Paul “invented” BAPTIZATION???


LOOOL. What is “baptization”?


Anyway, if you go back to the Gospels themselves, you will see that John the Baptist, the forerunner to Jesus, declares that Jesus would come after him and BAPTIZE people with the Holy Ghost. The first gathering of disciples after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven was BAPTIZED with the Holy Ghost. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was there with 119 other disciples and they were ALL baptized (not baptization) BEFORE Paul was a believer.


This didn’t start with Paul, but with Jesus Christ Himself.