Paul

[Anonymous No.15566142]

Why so many christians, new age types, and similar hate him? I've read plenty of times people calling him a false apostle
Here, let me quote something I read on /x/ (I post this here just to evade the schizos ramblings):
> Paul’s letters have corrupted the gospel and instilled us with some idea The law is dead but I tell you it is not deAd, do not get comfortable in your waiting and fall for the devils tricks, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove
>The true Gospels never once mentioned having to worship Jesus's death to get saved. You have been blinded by the false Apostle paul, whose Gospel doesn't even include the anointment.
Reading into the writting pattern I conclude it's probably one or two guys on with this.

I'd appreciate any Cath/Ortho to chime in.
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.15566274]

>>15566142
>a false apostle
Here is an info dump I compiled on that subject. Sorry if its a little messy and unorganized.

[Anonymous No.15566370]

>>15566274
Thanks a lot.

[Anonymous No.15567480]

"Christianity" is bullshit created by Saul as a way to neuter anti-Roman zealots. The original cultists whose practices he co-opted to create what we know as Christianity were obviously astrologers and occultists generally. Even the biblical material tainted by Saul's editing is filled to the brim with symbols and narratives which are derived from things which are considered heretical by Christianity. Yeshua as a figure not only connects to the age of Pisces which began in that time but also recreates the sacrificial king ritual (see: Frazer's The Golden Bough). The fundamentalist versions of religions are pushed on the public by corrupt individuals to enslave and control the masses which is why they always include prohibitions against the practice of magic for the common folk from which the cult elite are exempted.

[Anonymous No.15567499]

No one here knows anything about the history of Christianity but they read one Nietzsche book about how Paul was bad so they default to that.

[Anonymous No.15567526]

>>15567499
I-Its uhhh.... Life denying... or something. I want ummm.... Life afirming...

Yes! that is the Extent of the thought i have on anything!

[Anonymous No.15568143]

>>15566142
Naive answer: because they love Jesus (pbuh).
Probable answer: Jewish anti chrisitian propaganda in general.

Thing is: its not like he was encouraging people to do be bad. I don't think he really changed the essence of the gospels that drastically. The metaphysical difference between "believe in sacrifice and be saved" and "the kingdom of heaven is in your midst""are too subtle for most people to even comprehend. Believing the legitimacy of the latter claim implies authenticity of the sacrifice and the divinity of the Son.

Besides, why should we be talking about Paul and not just the gospels? Like why do you ask? The dogmas of traditions are only exoteric symbolism containing metaphysical commonalities that are "humanly universal". The essence of the sacrifice narrative, imo, is "the heavenly ray" or the illuminative ray of insight (buddhi in sanskrit I believe) that could be rendered analogically by the symbolism of the star, its light and what it illuminates. The star has to burn (sacrifice itself) in order to cast light (holy spirit?) and illuminate (become incarnate in the Son). Which is similar to the notion of divine sparks being enclosed in kelipot (shells/husks) in Hassdic spirituality.

/rant

[Anonymous No.15568781]

>>15566142
The law can only be violated without sin on rare occasions. For instance, Jesus healing on the Sabbath (one of the ten commandments).

[Anonymous No.15568808]

>>15566274
based

[Anonymous No.15568816]

>>15568143
Do you believe Jesus literally rose from the dead, or don't you? Because if you don't, what good are you? What value do your arguments have?

[Anonymous No.15568861]

>>15566142
Peter and the apostles recognized him and there would be one less gospel (Luke) if it were not for him.
Complaining about Paul is just Protestants trying to manipulate the faith to abide to their will.

[Anonymous No.15568947]

>>15566142
In approximate order:
Jews and Judaizers hate him because he taught that acts (e.g. the Mosaic Law or the Sunnah) are neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation. Of course, Christ taught this too, but attacking Christ Himself is too alienating to Christians so they have to settle on Paul, usually along with the claim that Paul distorted Christ's "real" message.

A lot of Protestant sects bought into Talmudic lies as a reaction against the Papacy and ended up as more or less Rabbinic puppets, which is how this ends up applying to them. But honestly Protestants outright rejecting Paul is something of a fringe movement.

Next you have the coomers. The most explicit teachings on Christian sexual morality do come from Paul. If you're s e e t h i n g over the rule of "fidelity within marriage [which is for life], and abstinence outside of it", whether because you personally want to sin without guilt or because you want to entice someone else into doing so, you're going to hate Paul. Ditto with buttsex, obviously. This is probably the most common reason for asshurt about Paul right now, since the modern assault on Christianity is largely centered on sex, but not historically.

Thirdly you have those who oppose Paul's teaching on the spiritual value of celibacy. This is mostly a fringe intra-Christian dispute and not really that significant beyond the occasional historical figure who thinks the contemporary church overemphasizes monasticism or the need for celibacy among the clergy.

[Anonymous No.15568997]

>>15568947
>Thirdly you have those who oppose Paul's teaching on the spiritual value of celibacy. This is mostly a fringe intra-Christian dispute and not really that significant beyond the occasional historical figure who thinks the contemporary church overemphasizes monasticism or the need for celibacy among the clergy.

This has always seemed a bit odd to me as someone who reads the Bible, because even in the Gospels it seems very obvious that Jesus treats sexual behavior as a very big deal and he seems to assert that celibacy is superior and marriage is for those who can't hack it. That's what the passage about divorce ultimately relates to. It's not JUST about divorce, it's about taking marriage and sexual behavior extremely seriously because it's a very grave matter.

[Anonymous No.15569073]

>>15568816
Yeah. 'Jesus' is undying and coextensive with our Father. And? Besides birth is just modification and death is just transformation.

[Anonymous No.15569227]

>>15568997
Well, exactly. But like I said, actually attacking Jesus' teaching is just not an effective rhetorical technique when you're talking to someone who's even nominally or culturally Christian.

[Anonymous No.15570013]

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

[Anonymous No.15570053]

>>15566142
What is some good supplemental (not the Bible) reading on Paul?

[Anonymous No.15570068]

>>15570053
I believe Saint Thomas Aquinas has some commentaries on Paul's epistles. Actually, since Paul's epistles are in the actual Bible there's a ton of commentary on them, including lots of commentary from saints and Doctors of the Church.

[Anonymous No.15570069]

>>15566142
Anon who said that attacking Paul is easier than attacking Christ hit the nail on the head. The Gospels are somewhat vague in their message, especially to the laity, and Pauls letters became cannon precisely because of their clarity. Without Paul it becomes far easier to wiggle in modern heresies like tolerance of libertine sexuality or universal salvation. Not to say that these beliefs don't contradict the gospels, they do, but less explicitly so than Pauline works.

[Anonymous No.15570170]

>>15566274
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.15570331]

>>15570053
NT Wright

[Anonymous No.15570815]

>>15566142
the slander against Paul has all the makings of an organized shill op that I've learned to recognize after all these years. This particular psyop began a long time ago in academia and only in recent years (this decade) have I noticed it proliferate into mainstream discussions on Christianity on the internet. Like most discussed ideas nowadays, it's facilitated from the top-down.

[Anonymous No.15570847]

>>15566142
Early Christians were ambivalent because gnostics got a lot of material from him, but without him they still technically should follow Mosaic law.
Christians dislike him now because he is the biggest source of faith alone theology.
Honestly most of the apostles contradict one another.

[Anonymous No.15571031]

>>15566142
Paul's haters are those people who have a romantic and new agey view of Christianity, as a religion where everybody is in love with everybody and weak people can have a shinier soul than strong people.
But in reality that's not how a culture-defining religion takes off. Advanced societies are always materialistic, they need the social bonds and traditions enforced by a religion in order to stick together and prosper. The teachings of Jesus have always been extremely contrary to the culture of the masses, you can see that today in the people who go through extreme mental gymnastics to interpret quotes such as the "camel through the eye of the needle" one according to their materialistic lifestyle. That's because Jesus, by definition, is not of this world. That's because Jesus is, by definition, not of this world. An ordinary man can read what he had to say but he will always have more trust in the worldly wisdom that has propagated to him by way of tradition.
Paul saw the potential in Jesus and his miracle and understood that that was the only excuse he needed in order to propagate a new set of laws that would reshape civilization. I see Paul as an exceedingly cunning and visionary figure. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a person who has brought as much change upon the world as Paul has.

[Anonymous No.15571101]

>>15566142
>let me quote something I read on /x/
stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.15571272]

>>15570053
St. John Chrysostom.
Scroll down on this page and you'll have his commentaries on every epistle - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

[Anonymous No.15571321]

OP here, I appreciate the replies, guys.
I'll pray for you.

>>15571101
Hey anon, it was an honest question and I would rather post here.

[Anonymous No.15572228]

>>15570069
>Without Paul it becomes far easier to wiggle in modern heresies like tolerance of libertine sexuality or universal salvation.
From the outset Paul was among, and is about, and addresses, those who are most susceptible to excess in sex and violence. He is not for everyone, but for whom he is, so be it. For whom he isn't, the heresies in question hardly pertain.

[Anonymous No.15572424]

>>15566142
i just don't get why Paul becomes the main character after the ascension of the Christ instead of Peter.

[Anonymous No.15572549]

>>15568816
stop spouting protty ideology

[Anonymous No.15573221]

>>15572549
The Apostolic Creed is not "protty ideology".

[Anonymous No.15573341]

>>15566142
What are some good supplemental books to read on Paul?

[Anonymous No.15573639]

Christianity would be irrelevant without Paul. Without Paul the other apostles were content with only converting Jews. If Christianity stuck with that it'd be another dead Jewish sect with a wannabe messiah and Judaism is littered with those dead groups.

[Anonymous No.15574503]

>>15573341
These, one is a biography and the other is more theological.

[Anonymous No.15575547]

>>>/lit/thread/S13941134#p13943441
>Another tremendously underrated Pauline perversion is the re-Jewifying of Jesus under the pretense of de-Jewifying. Paul's claim that Judaism was somehow "fulfilled" or "abolished" through the Atonement of Original Sin actually only expands the boundaries of Judaism until it swallows and destroys anything and everything else, making Jesus not only A Jew, but THE Jew. The topology of the inversion makes your head spin, utterly putrid. It makes Matthew 23 sound merciful.

[Anonymous No.15575575]

>>15575547
Yes, I'm going to trust some anonymous retard on 4chan, I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.15576571]

>>15573341
probably micah

[Anonymous No.15576622]

>>15566142
>Why so many christians, new age types, and similar hate him?
They need a scapegoat because all those people 'like' Jesus, and there's little material available for them to incriminate Peter or John or those other apostles due to how little they wrote, whereas Paul was prolific, so they use Paul as the scapegoat. It's purely speculation to reconstruct a historical Jesus outside the one taught by the earliest Christian tradition still with us. Which means everyone gets to invent a Jesus in their own image the moment they can argue that for whatever reason, the earliest Christian tradition is dubious in some way or another. They pretend to be more historically accurate, but really, they're just trying to be ahistorical, because even if the historical Jesus was different, no 21st century reconstruction can justifiably represent that now-lost historical Jesus. It's always a product of bias.