dajstill wrote:I have to say, my faith, my walk, my journey, and my understanding got so much more clear when I finally dropped Paul. I must admit, having issues with many of the writings of Paul got me started on my journey - it just didn't make sense. He got confusing, said conflicting things, and was being used by many a Christian friend to justify a "do what you like" lifestyle. Paul colored my view of the Torah from childhood as something "bad", even a "curse".
Mine too. It's amazing the scriptural harmony with Yahowsha's words (red letter :) when one finally throws out Paul's writings. I read and was confronted with the issues in
http://questioningpaul.com and also
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/ (BTW: the author is reported to know his real name, but wants people to search, find & read it). Then I took a pause and tried to ignore Paul for a while, even giving him the benefit of the doubt to get along with some Hebrew Roots, Christians and Messianic types (Shaw'ul was pro-Torah and misunderstood). As I avoided Paul's writings and revistited the T/P/P and Yahowsha's words it was like constantly it was in my face how bad Paul contradicted them, and Yahowsha's prophetic warnings specific to Paul.
dajstill wrote:I don't know if Paul is a brother or not. The "New Testament" has been so corrupted that I don't know what he really did and didn't say. I have to say that for the "average" Christian - the writings of Paul as they stand in English translations are against Torah and against Yahweh. The writings attributed to Paul make the case for an "Old Testament" God and a "New Testament" God. They glorify "Jesus" as if He someone came to "correct" God (you "were" under the "law"; now you are under "grace") - these type of sayings put into conflict Yahowah as Yahoshua instead of having them work in one accord. We may come to find that Paul's words were heavily corrupted, or that Paul wrote only sections of those works and others inserted at random will.
Some of the oldest Manuscripts are of Paul's writings, so that really doesn't let him off the hook. Here's some hard hitting points in brief soundbite form:
The fact that Paul claimed to see Yahowsha' on the road to Damascus in light of what Yahowsha' said about individuals who make such claims is game over.
The fact that Paul quoted Dionysus during that encounter is game over.
The fact that Paul spoke against circumcision is game over.
The fact that Paul's one prophecy was wrong is game over.
The fact that Paul misquoted the Torah is game over.
The fact that Paul said that the Torah could not save is game over.
When Paul misstated the events at the Jerusalem Summit, it was game over.
When Paul admitted to being demon possessed it was game over.
When Paul said that he pretended to be whatever was expedient, it was game over.
But if you want to boil it all down to one argument, when Paul wrote of two covenants, not one, with the one memorialized on Mount Sinai being of Hagar and enslaving, the case against him became irrefutable.
One of the reasons that people get all caught up justifying Paul is because of the way he wrote. Other than speaking against circumcision, he was circuitous by design. So until you understand his ploy, the half truths which permeate his arguments can be taken out of context and misinterpreted.
When a man or woman are honestly mistaken and hears the truth, they will either stop being mistaken or cease to be honest.
dajstill wrote:Some of the things that troubled me about Paul was that Peter was clearly sent to the gentiles (when his vision was explained to him) - so why the need to come back and do a miraculous conversion of Paul? That is what I don't understand. After Paul's conversion - the apostles were still persecuted as were other believers in Yahoshua. I can't say for sure what the conversion of Paul accomplished; except for giving us much of the Christianity we know today. This Christianity that has people stuck being so close, in yet so far from Yahowah.
That Yahowsha so failed in training & equipping his disciples that a super-apostle exclusive to the gentiles was needed is preposterous. Nor does Yahowsha ever even prophetically declare that would occur. But he did state "I come in my fathers name...but another will come in his name and him you will accept" and he'll even be able to perform miracles to fool you, etc.
dajstill wrote:The writings of Paul have some really profound statements, but they also have some statements that MUST be considered nothing short of heresy. Again, it may be corruption of the text, but it still is what is causing a "mystery religion" to be veiled as truth. Without Paul, almost every Christian I know would be calling on the name of Yah (I believe, but who knows what roads would have converged in the past 2,000 years).
If 100% lies it would only fool a fool, but mix truth with deadly lies it becomes very beguiling.
dajstill wrote:My mother has also come to know Yahowah and we have been doing quite a bit of study together. Our only area of convergence is that I threw out Paul completely and she did not. Even with her knowledge of Yahowah, she still holds beliefs that can only be found in the writings of Paul (like speaking in tongues). Some of her favorite scriptures are in the writing of Paul, so she can't give him up. I can only think of the writings of Paul as being like satan in the garden - being knowledge of good mixed with evil. Even Paul's writing describing love is against Yah (Paul says love is NEVER jealous, while Yahowah who IS love says He is a jealous God).
Interesting you mention tongues. As manuscripts testify, there is also a portion scribes added to the end of Mark in the 400's, Mark 16:9-20. I jokingly refer to it as the appalacian pentecostal snake handler, poison drinking and tongue talking enabling passage.
dajstill wrote:In just two books (Timothy and Titus) the writings attributed to Paul undid much of the work of Yahoshua here on earth. Yahoshua broke religious bonds off of us by showing that we weren't under the false teachings of the rabbi, only under the words of Yah in the Torah. The writings of Paul then created a new church hierarchy just as damning and dangerous as the Rabbinical priests. In fact, it was almost worse because at least some of the teachings of the Rabbi could be tied to the Torah and people would be celebrating at least 6 or the 7 feasts and keeping Sabbath.
Seems especially the ones who have the most difficulty giving up Paul are those who desire/make a buck or a living selling God. Without Paul, religious institutions and their funding seem to crumble.
Note in Timothy 1:15 all of Asia eventually rejected Paul. I suppose that also includes the Bereans ;^) .
Also seems Luke, although beguiled by Paul, was an accurate historian. In fact much of his accounts unwittingly exposes Paul. For instance Acts 19:1-9 (esp 9) collaborates the "way to go" statement in Revelation 2:1-2. Acts 15 exposes Paul's lies about the Jerusalem summit in Galations. Not to mention the 3 conflicting Acts accounts on the road to Damascus on who heard, saw, and the last to Aggrippa conflicting the previous 2 in that he was dubbed apostle on the spot.
dajstill wrote:The writings of Paul also called into question the work of Yahoshua in calling the Twelve. It almost seems as if Yahoshua maybe called the "wrong twelve" and thus needed to come back and make up for His mistake by doing a dramatic (and forced) conversion of Paul. Eleven of the 12 were still around during the conversion of Paul, as were many others that had sat at the feet of Yahoshua, why the need for Paul in particular? Again, it didn't stop the persecution of the followers of Yahoshua, so what exactly was such a strange conversion needed for?
Great point. Also seems himself and Luke was his only witness (2 or 3 witnesses?), and 2nd Peter was even considered a forgery by some of the "church fathers" (if any bring up chapter 3 endorsement).
Consider the possibility that rather than physically murdering tens or hundreds, the adversary could instead use this willing confessed demoniac (2nd Cor 12:7) to spiritually murder billions by twisting & confusion, new replacement covenant and such. Interesting fullfilment of Gen 49:1 and verse 27 about history's most famous Benjamite.
In studying the further evolution I also find Marcion to be a fitting and extreme example of Paul's teachings totally divorced from the T/P/P/ and Yahowsha's words.
https://secure.wikimedia...pedia/en/wiki/Marcionismdajstill wrote:I, in my feeble little mind, cannot reconcile the writings of Paul with the rest of Scripture. I am forced to either accept the rest of Scripture or accept Paul. The vast majority of Christianity has accepted Paul. If they clung to Peter, we wouldn't have such a Laodecian "church". If they had clung to James and even John - again, there wouldn't be such confusion. Only in clinging to the writings of Paul do we get the Christianity we have today. And no one can ever explain exactly "why" Paul? His conversion isn't predicted anywhere in Scripture, and someone with such foundational views as how to "structure a church", views of marriage inconsistent with the Torah, views of women inconsistent with the Torah, views of secular leadership inconsistent with the rest of Scripture (especially Romans) - certainly there should have been some prophesy about one coming after Yahoshua that would "make right" peoples understandings of the Torah. Even going to the other disciples and debating what gentiles "really needed to do" considering there had up to that point always been ONE Torah for the children of Israel and the stranger - just one. Only Paul created the notion (eventually backed to an extent of a "starting point" by the others) that there were somehow two rules - one for the "Jew" and one for the "gentile".
Yes, the more you examine it, the stronger it becomes. Paul cleverly contradicted by twisting things. Also in Galations he boasted that he was a Pharisee of Pharisees and therfore knew the torah perfectly. What a line since Yahowsha condemned the scribes/Pharisees as sons of serpents and of their father the adversary. On further examination it seems much of what Paul taught was oral law (later codified into mishna & talmud). Although Christianity/Paul teaches the Torah as a cruel taskmaster, it's liberating once you compare what a burdensome stone Paul's writings are...do this, don't do that, women shall remain silent, submit to religious authorities and pay them, etc. So many rules and regulations.
dajstill wrote:The biggest thing that frustrates me though, is that many of my friends and family, those that in their heart do love what they know of God and believe of God - may well have to endure the Tribulation. And the reason for that is the words attributed to Paul. It is the words of Paul that make them feel they don't need to keep the Feasts, the words of Paul that tell them they don't need to honor the Sabbath, the words of Paul that tell them they are "under Grace" and are not "under the Law". My friends and family would honestly do whatever they thought was required of them, they just cannot look past Paul to find truth. Even when they are presented with truth, they cannot reconcile it with Paul.
Yes that strong delusion is a hard one to shake.
dajstill wrote:Again, Paul may be just as appalled by what has happened to his letters, I don't know. I cannot judge Paul. I can, however, judge the writings attributed to him. The fact that they are so easily "twisted" shows that something is amiss. In order to twist the Torah, the Rabbi needed to create "another" document - they needed to add to the Torah. If Jews simply cling to the Torah and ignore the Rabbi, they are on the path. They can even find Yahoshua in the prophets. The writings of Paul are different, they didn't "add" to the Torah, they negated the Torah. Again, Paul may be just as hurt and my heart will break for him if he truly didn't write these things, or wrote them with a limited understanding only to come into more complete knowledge later. He didn't ask for his writings to become "scripture" none of the "New Testament" writers did. They were simply writings letters or giving historical accounts for their day. I can't find anywhere that someone said "and this is just as relevant as the writings of Moses" or "study these words as often as you read the Torah". But we still need to be clear that there is no confusion with Yahowah, and if anyone is causing their to be confusion - they must be put aside. Paul doesn't give me a better understanding of Torah - at all.
Yes, but with your apparent willingness to search and follow Yah wherever it leads you, I think over time it will increasingly destroy the "Paul was misunderstood" possibility. It sure has with me.
