Baltimore IMC : http://www.baltimoreimc.org
Commentary :: Right Wing
A Theological Case Against The Christian Right
Author
- New Reformation
Date Created
- 06 Feb 2007
The following contribution is an attempt to develop an alternative theological Christian case against the Christian Right. The basis of Right-wing Evangelical theology are the writings of anti-semite Saul of Tarsus. These writings (such as Romans) are used to justify hatred against Gays and Lesbians. By demolishing "Paul" you demolish the Religious Right. I've tried it. IT WORKS ! *** p.s. This writing assumes that Christ and his Apostles existed in a historical sense.
originally posted at >>> groups.yahoo.com/group/Apostolic_Truth/message/4
1. Evangelicals admit that Saul of Tarsus was not among the 12 Apostles (as listed in Mathew 10:2-5 King James), yet they continue to propose that he was an "apostle". On what grounds do they maintain this ? Can they cite any reference in the writings of Peter, Luke, Mathew, James , Jude or John where it specifically designates Saul of Tarsus as an "Apostle" ? The writings of Saul of Tarsus are not "proof" nor is the Paulite version of the "Book of Acts" which was written by Saul of Tarsus and "embellished" by Paulite Bisops; ask for independent confirmation from a legitimate Apostolic source. (carbon dated).
2.It is not true that Christianity was "founded by Saul of Tarsus". What was founded by Saul of Tarsus was the GENTILE version of "Christianity" which denies the Jewish nature of The Christ. The legitimate Apostolic ministry of the Ecclesia began at the Pentecost. Saul of Tarsus was NOT present at the Pentecost. Incidentally, he was NOT a participant in the origianl Eucharist (what you call the "Lords' Supper") during the passover in 33 A.D. Therefore I see no reason to consider his writtings or opinions to be canonical in any sense. Saul of Tarsus on these grounds is not a legitimate Apostolic source.
3. The dispute between Peter and Saul of Tarsus at Antioch is well documented (inclusive by non-Christian sources). Paul and James sided with Peter against Saul of Tarsus who said the Torah was useless and who preached against the LAW of circumcision. What is written in the Paulite version of the Book of Acts about Peter agreeing with Saul of Tarsus on circumcision is not corraborated by any independent writting of Peter, or James or Paul. Once more, the
writings of Saul of Tarsus or of Paulite Bishops are not "proof". In the same way that Lucifer, when he was cast out from heaven, took with him 1/3 of the Angels; Saul of Tarsus took his followers out of the legitimate Apostolic Judeo-Christian Ecclesia and set up his own. That false Church is the foundation of the "Christianity" you know. In time this Paulite Gentile Church evolved in to the Catholic Churches...and out of the Roman variable came the Protestant Churches latter on. Saul of Tarsus was the root of the chain of apostasy. A successful false Apostle.
4. The Paulite version of the Book of Acts is a work of fiction, heavely propagandistic in nature and style. The "Damascus Road" experience was fabricated. The episode is never mentioned or corraborated in any legitimate Apostolic text. You would think that an event as important as the appearance of Christ to a non-Apostle would have been recorded by Peter or another of the legitimate Apostles. Saul of Tarsus himself never mentions the event in any of his other writings and epistles. Why is that ? Note that the Paulite Book of Acts was written AFTER the Paulite Church split from the legitimate Apostolic Judeo-Christian Ecclesia.
5. There is no proof that Saul of Tarsus was a "Roman citizen", and conversely it is unlikely that he was "a Pharisee". Philological analysis of his writings does not denote the writing style of someone educated in that tradition, rather of someone who came from a Hellenised Jewish background. There is also a problem with some of his epistles and letters. At least three of them are considered to be pseudoepigraphic (i.e their authorship is disputed). The most likely theory about Paulite pseudoepigrapa is that Paulite Bishops fabricated texts down the line and then attributed them to Saul of Tarsus in order to legitimate doctinal positions, specially those of an anti-Semitic nature. Saul of Tarsus is on record as a hater of Jews and the Holy Talmud. Athanasius was also an anti-Semite. The history of Western anti-Semitism is directly linked to the Paulite apostasy and its anti-circumcisional ideology.
6. There are serious problems with relying on Saul of Tarsus as a source of True Apostolic Teaching. Saul of Tarsus was in conflict with the Jewish Christian Apostles (specifically James and Peter), regarding doctrine and over claims by Saul of Tarsus to doctrinal authority as a non-Apostle. In the context of a Theological and doctrinal dispute pitting real Apostles against a foreign element, and on the basis of Mathew 17:5 and then Mathew 16:18 and Mathew 16:19; I choose to err on the side of the Apostles of Christ (as listed in Mathew 10:2-5) against Saul of Tarsus. If you want to side with Saul of Tarsus against Peter you are free to do so. But know that you are violating the commandments of Christ as it respects Peter. Christ designated Peter as leader of the Ecclesia. Christ never mentioned Saul of Tarsus as having any leadership rights or apostleship.
7. In Galatians, Saul of Tarsus (assuming Galatians was actually written by him), admits that he was not well known in Judea, but in Acts 26:19-20 he claims to have spread the gospel all over Judea. If Saul of Tarsus was not known to the Jews of Judea how is it possible he "converted" them ? In Acts 1:18 the account of the death of Judas Iscariot written by Saul of Tarsus contradicts Mathew 27:5. These are just two of the numerous ways in which the writings of Saul of Tarsus are self contradictory or contradict legitimate Apostolic Gospels. There is no corraboration in legitimate Apostolic texts about Saul of Tarsus "raising the dead" or performing "miracles". Note that Lucifer is also able to perform signs and miracles in order to confuse men.
8. It is not true that it was Saul of Tarsus who "brought the gospel from Israel to the entire known world" (sic.). The REAL APOSTLES did that. Peter went to Italy, Thomas went to India, Andrew went to Armenia and Phillip to Africa, etc. The idea of Saul of Tarsus as
the 'superman apostle' is a fabrication of the Paulite Churches. He was only a man. Not a God, Not the Christ and definitely NOT AN APOSTLE.
9. It is not true that Saul of Tarsus "preached the same gospel" as that of the Apostles. Saul of Tarsus preached that Christ was God, that Christ was the Creator incarnate. This false doctrine clearly contradicts the Apostolic record (see John 14:23-24 ). His comment
that "even if we or an Angel FROM HEAVEN should preach a gospel other than the one we preached you , let him be eternally condemned " (Gal 1:8) is potentially blasphemous because no man has the authority to command this. Only Eloyhim has the authority to command HIS Angels or about the doings of HIS Angels. Saul of Tarsus clearly overstepped his bounds there. That he was not a legitimate Apostle to boot only adds to his shame. In this context, Saul of Tarsus contradicts himself when he affirms that, on the one hand, "an apostle never uplifts himself" and subsequently pretends to issue instructions about the interaction of Humans with Angels which is clearly the exclusive province of Eloyhim. In a dispute between the God of Abraham and Saul of Tarsus over who has authority to command Angels I side with the God of Abraham.
10. The only credible criteria for "canonicity" is APOSTOLIC ORIGIN (i.e attributed EXCLUSIVELY to the 12 Apostles as listed in Mathew 10:2-5.) The Apostolic texts do not listany "companions", only TWELVE APOSTLES. "Universal acceptance" is not a valid argument; just because a large number of people believe that something is true does not make whatever they believe true. False doctrines can also be "univerally accepted", for example the false doctrine that Saul of Tarsus was an "apostle". The argument of "liturgical use by early christians" is not a valid argument either. WHICH "early Christians" are you talking about ? Paulite, Christo-Pagan, Gnostic or Judeo-Christian ? WHEN ? The argument that "consistent message containing theological ideas compatible with accepted Christian writings" does not work unless you clearly specify WHOSE "accepted christian writings" and WHO defines "accepted". As much as you want to pretend that you do not follow the Athanasian list, you actually do because that list is precisely on that which you are basing the claim for the canonicity of Saul of Tarsus writtings. It was Athanasius who institutionalised the Gospel list that you are using. He did so in the 4th century A.D. I have yet to hear or read a credible case for the Athanasian list... Aside from the fact that there was a political dispute betweenAlexandria, Rome and Antioch during his reign as Patriarch of Alexandria; that Athanasius was a Bishop in one of the Churches founded by followers of Saul of Tarsus is not a case for Athanasius' authority to fix the Gospel. Saul of Tarsus was not a legitimate Apostle.
1. Evangelicals admit that Saul of Tarsus was not among the 12 Apostles (as listed in Mathew 10:2-5 King James), yet they continue to propose that he was an "apostle". On what grounds do they maintain this ? Can they cite any reference in the writings of Peter, Luke, Mathew, James , Jude or John where it specifically designates Saul of Tarsus as an "Apostle" ? The writings of Saul of Tarsus are not "proof" nor is the Paulite version of the "Book of Acts" which was written by Saul of Tarsus and "embellished" by Paulite Bisops; ask for independent confirmation from a legitimate Apostolic source. (carbon dated).
2.It is not true that Christianity was "founded by Saul of Tarsus". What was founded by Saul of Tarsus was the GENTILE version of "Christianity" which denies the Jewish nature of The Christ. The legitimate Apostolic ministry of the Ecclesia began at the Pentecost. Saul of Tarsus was NOT present at the Pentecost. Incidentally, he was NOT a participant in the origianl Eucharist (what you call the "Lords' Supper") during the passover in 33 A.D. Therefore I see no reason to consider his writtings or opinions to be canonical in any sense. Saul of Tarsus on these grounds is not a legitimate Apostolic source.
3. The dispute between Peter and Saul of Tarsus at Antioch is well documented (inclusive by non-Christian sources). Paul and James sided with Peter against Saul of Tarsus who said the Torah was useless and who preached against the LAW of circumcision. What is written in the Paulite version of the Book of Acts about Peter agreeing with Saul of Tarsus on circumcision is not corraborated by any independent writting of Peter, or James or Paul. Once more, the
writings of Saul of Tarsus or of Paulite Bishops are not "proof". In the same way that Lucifer, when he was cast out from heaven, took with him 1/3 of the Angels; Saul of Tarsus took his followers out of the legitimate Apostolic Judeo-Christian Ecclesia and set up his own. That false Church is the foundation of the "Christianity" you know. In time this Paulite Gentile Church evolved in to the Catholic Churches...and out of the Roman variable came the Protestant Churches latter on. Saul of Tarsus was the root of the chain of apostasy. A successful false Apostle.
4. The Paulite version of the Book of Acts is a work of fiction, heavely propagandistic in nature and style. The "Damascus Road" experience was fabricated. The episode is never mentioned or corraborated in any legitimate Apostolic text. You would think that an event as important as the appearance of Christ to a non-Apostle would have been recorded by Peter or another of the legitimate Apostles. Saul of Tarsus himself never mentions the event in any of his other writings and epistles. Why is that ? Note that the Paulite Book of Acts was written AFTER the Paulite Church split from the legitimate Apostolic Judeo-Christian Ecclesia.
5. There is no proof that Saul of Tarsus was a "Roman citizen", and conversely it is unlikely that he was "a Pharisee". Philological analysis of his writings does not denote the writing style of someone educated in that tradition, rather of someone who came from a Hellenised Jewish background. There is also a problem with some of his epistles and letters. At least three of them are considered to be pseudoepigraphic (i.e their authorship is disputed). The most likely theory about Paulite pseudoepigrapa is that Paulite Bishops fabricated texts down the line and then attributed them to Saul of Tarsus in order to legitimate doctinal positions, specially those of an anti-Semitic nature. Saul of Tarsus is on record as a hater of Jews and the Holy Talmud. Athanasius was also an anti-Semite. The history of Western anti-Semitism is directly linked to the Paulite apostasy and its anti-circumcisional ideology.
6. There are serious problems with relying on Saul of Tarsus as a source of True Apostolic Teaching. Saul of Tarsus was in conflict with the Jewish Christian Apostles (specifically James and Peter), regarding doctrine and over claims by Saul of Tarsus to doctrinal authority as a non-Apostle. In the context of a Theological and doctrinal dispute pitting real Apostles against a foreign element, and on the basis of Mathew 17:5 and then Mathew 16:18 and Mathew 16:19; I choose to err on the side of the Apostles of Christ (as listed in Mathew 10:2-5) against Saul of Tarsus. If you want to side with Saul of Tarsus against Peter you are free to do so. But know that you are violating the commandments of Christ as it respects Peter. Christ designated Peter as leader of the Ecclesia. Christ never mentioned Saul of Tarsus as having any leadership rights or apostleship.
7. In Galatians, Saul of Tarsus (assuming Galatians was actually written by him), admits that he was not well known in Judea, but in Acts 26:19-20 he claims to have spread the gospel all over Judea. If Saul of Tarsus was not known to the Jews of Judea how is it possible he "converted" them ? In Acts 1:18 the account of the death of Judas Iscariot written by Saul of Tarsus contradicts Mathew 27:5. These are just two of the numerous ways in which the writings of Saul of Tarsus are self contradictory or contradict legitimate Apostolic Gospels. There is no corraboration in legitimate Apostolic texts about Saul of Tarsus "raising the dead" or performing "miracles". Note that Lucifer is also able to perform signs and miracles in order to confuse men.
8. It is not true that it was Saul of Tarsus who "brought the gospel from Israel to the entire known world" (sic.). The REAL APOSTLES did that. Peter went to Italy, Thomas went to India, Andrew went to Armenia and Phillip to Africa, etc. The idea of Saul of Tarsus as
the 'superman apostle' is a fabrication of the Paulite Churches. He was only a man. Not a God, Not the Christ and definitely NOT AN APOSTLE.
9. It is not true that Saul of Tarsus "preached the same gospel" as that of the Apostles. Saul of Tarsus preached that Christ was God, that Christ was the Creator incarnate. This false doctrine clearly contradicts the Apostolic record (see John 14:23-24 ). His comment
that "even if we or an Angel FROM HEAVEN should preach a gospel other than the one we preached you , let him be eternally condemned " (Gal 1:8) is potentially blasphemous because no man has the authority to command this. Only Eloyhim has the authority to command HIS Angels or about the doings of HIS Angels. Saul of Tarsus clearly overstepped his bounds there. That he was not a legitimate Apostle to boot only adds to his shame. In this context, Saul of Tarsus contradicts himself when he affirms that, on the one hand, "an apostle never uplifts himself" and subsequently pretends to issue instructions about the interaction of Humans with Angels which is clearly the exclusive province of Eloyhim. In a dispute between the God of Abraham and Saul of Tarsus over who has authority to command Angels I side with the God of Abraham.
10. The only credible criteria for "canonicity" is APOSTOLIC ORIGIN (i.e attributed EXCLUSIVELY to the 12 Apostles as listed in Mathew 10:2-5.) The Apostolic texts do not listany "companions", only TWELVE APOSTLES. "Universal acceptance" is not a valid argument; just because a large number of people believe that something is true does not make whatever they believe true. False doctrines can also be "univerally accepted", for example the false doctrine that Saul of Tarsus was an "apostle". The argument of "liturgical use by early christians" is not a valid argument either. WHICH "early Christians" are you talking about ? Paulite, Christo-Pagan, Gnostic or Judeo-Christian ? WHEN ? The argument that "consistent message containing theological ideas compatible with accepted Christian writings" does not work unless you clearly specify WHOSE "accepted christian writings" and WHO defines "accepted". As much as you want to pretend that you do not follow the Athanasian list, you actually do because that list is precisely on that which you are basing the claim for the canonicity of Saul of Tarsus writtings. It was Athanasius who institutionalised the Gospel list that you are using. He did so in the 4th century A.D. I have yet to hear or read a credible case for the Athanasian list... Aside from the fact that there was a political dispute betweenAlexandria, Rome and Antioch during his reign as Patriarch of Alexandria; that Athanasius was a Bishop in one of the Churches founded by followers of Saul of Tarsus is not a case for Athanasius' authority to fix the Gospel. Saul of Tarsus was not a legitimate Apostle.
Views
Information
Search
This site made manifest by dadaIMC software