I appreciate the Gospels very much and I have a slight admiration for Paul of Tarsus, who in my eyes this great Paul made such a beautiful mess in the teachings of Jesus, that he won everything because he wrote more of Books of the Bible than any other author, while Jesus did not write a single word, so it makes you wonder why Paul would have been inspired by God?
To consider that Paul of Tarsus, who lived in the first century of the Christian era as an apostle of Jesus, would be like rewriting the History of Jesus' message (not to say Christianity)!
At one point Paul of Tarsus said, "I myself am not under the law," but immediately corrects his statement and basically says, "Well, I am under a law - I am under the law of Christ. (1 Corinthians 9).
He is more than an apostle as far as I am concerned, a true Napoleon of Christianity.
I understand that the earliest writings of the New Testament are actually letters from Paul of Tarsus that were written around AD 50-60, while the Gospels were only written later in the period AD 80-110. . This means that Paul's theories of Tarsus were already before the authors of the Gospels wrote their interpretations of the ministry of Jesus.
Before further discussing the writings of Paul of Tarsus, it is helpful to point out that on the Internet one will find Christian sites which provide very difficult information which will be completely new to the truth-seeking Christian. I assure you that the following details, facts and information regarding the true historical Paul of Tarsus and the problem and split with the Church in Jerusalem are documented well outside the New Testament. The Bible is definitely worth a deep study, but some things that Paul of Tarsus in particular said are clearly wrong (for example, all governments come from God and slaves who obey their masters do God's will!)
It was Paul of Tarsus who launched the belief that Jesus was incarnated and suffered the torture of the cross, so that God would forgive the sin committed by Adam and Eve, a sin which fixed the fate of all Humanity. : the expulsion from Eden, the transmission of this sin to all men, the condition of being mortal, and it is Augustine of Hippo is the inventor of the expression "original sin" and an obsessed with 'a literal reading of the story of the Fall. He organized councils in Carthage, which resulted in the affirmation of the doctrine of original sin. From that moment, the problem is resolved for the Church, but Christian theologians fail to understand, explain and justify an increasingly incomprehensible and even scandalous belief: God, almighty and infinitely good. , mercilessly condemned the whole of humanity.
Some Christian theologians believe that Adam and Eve committed the sin of the flesh yet this extremely suicidal theology completely contradicts the fact that human beings were made in the image of the perfectly good Creator. The doctrine of sin is false and blasphemous, saying that every baby is inherently flawed, that God the Creator does evil in the world, and that God is unjust, rebuking all children for the sins of their parents, well that this is strongly refuted in Ezekiel 18:20, but the church refuses to go back on the dogmas it has proclaimed. These doctrines are therefore repeated in the latest version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by the Vatican in 1997 and above all the Church recognizes, however, the irrational character of its explanations: “The transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand”.
In Jesus' teaching he had no problem offending people by telling a crucial and straightforward truth, but Paul of Tarsus said Christians will have to change their behavior depending on whether or not it offends the other person, and in this way he promoted moral relativism in this way.
It is only useful to see that Paul of Tarsus affirmed in one of his letters (2 Cor 10) that some of his rivals criticized his rhetorical talents, he was undoubtedly endowed with great oratorical talent and a power of persuasion which made him a formidable adversary in religious disputes. In that same letter and in that same chapter, he spoke of demolishing the arguments against his strongholds.
The constant movements of Paul from Tarsus and his references to the cities he had visited and intended to visit, testify to his enormous energy. He was not intimidated by the dangers of transportation in his day and does not seem to have had more hesitation or apprehension about taking an intercontinental trip than a traveller today.
Paul of Tarsus' political gaze kept him safe from the perils of clashing with Roman power as he travelled freely throughout the empire. Eventually he got into trouble with the Roman civil authorities, as he became a threat to them, they grabbed him, interrogated and killed him for his success with the Gentiles. After having spread his message for a quarter of a century and laid a solid foundation for the spread of his faith. Before his imprisonment, Paul of Tarsus succeeded in leading the religion he adopted so that it remained on the right side of power. To accomplish his goal, Paul of Tarsus used all the artifices of politics, without excluding opportunity and duplicity. He said this of himself in his first letter to the Corinthians:
Although I am free and do not belong to any man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to earn as much as possible. For the Jews, I become like a Jew, to win over the Jews. For those who are under the law, I become as one under the law (although I am not under the law), in order to gain those who are under the law. For those who do not have the law, I become like one who does not have the law (although I am not free from the law of God but am under the law of Christ), in order to win those who do not have the law. For the weak, I become weak, to win over the weak. I have become everything to all men (1 Cor 9: 19-22).
This is why I believe that this great Paul of Tarsus is the Napoleon of Christianity!!!!
According to some Christian sources, Paul of Tarsus the theologian is a less coherent and less convincing thinker than is generally believed and he had confused circumcision with the observance of other laws of the Torah, as Paul of Tarsus expressed the whole range of ideas about the value of circumcision, with indifference in 1 Cor 7:19:20
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is everything. May everyone remain as they were when called?
Circumcision has no value in Gal 5: 6 6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision is of any use, nor uncircumcision; but the faith which acts out of love.
Affirm that circumcision has value in Rom 3: 1-2 1
So what advantage does the Jew have? Or what profit is there from circumcision? 2 In any case, mainly because it was to them that the oracles of God were committed.
In his relationship with the apostles, Paul of Tarsus finds himself in a rather difficult situation. The facts of the story of his rejection in his outburst of love for the daughter of the High Priest, showed that Paul of Tarsus as a Pharisee rejected. Moreover, Paul of Tarsus had wanted the independence of the Church in Jerusalem, but above all needed their recognition and their authority for his missions. In Galatians 1:18 he states: "Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and I stayed with him for 15 days". Verse 19 states: "But the other apostles saw no one except James the brother of the Lord".
There is no doubt that the fortnight with Peter was largely devoted to imparting more information about the context of Jesus' ministry on earth as well as the very beginnings of the new movement.
In Galatians 2: 1-2 he states: "Then after fourteen years I returned to Jerusalem .... I presented them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but in private before those who are famous, lest I was not in vain ".
This is because Paul of Tarsus submits his gospel to the apostles in Jerusalem for their approval.
Paul would later say: "They added nothing, no other content, no request, instruction or requirement to the gospel without circumcision ... except the encouragement to remember the importance of almsgiving (Gal. 2: 10) ".
In the end it would seem that it is precisely these problems that would ultimately separate Paul of Tarsus from the Church in Jerusalem in the last years of his life. The Paul of Tarsus case is quite a disturbing enigma for the church, indeed, he was considered the true founder of Christianity, deviating from the Jewish ideological foundations of his time and dissenting from his people, it seems. It is opportune to question the Pauline motives which may have posed a problem for the Apostles of his time and who did not see in Paul of Tarsus a subversive element without questioning the foundations of Christianity.
At the risk of deceiving me!NB/Original article in French, Google translation
http://kadertahri.canalblog.com/
