|
What follows was derived in part from New Testament Fallacies by Shmuel Golding of the Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, Jerusalem, Israel. All Bible citations are from the King James version of the Bible and are underlined for the convenience of the reader. First let us consider the three accounts of Paul's conversion as recorded in Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26. There is an obvious contradiction between the first two accounts. In chapter 9 we are told that the men accompanying him heard the voice whereas in chapter 22 it states that they did not hear the voice. Another contradiction is the inconsistency in the manner in which Paul claims to have received his instructions. According to the first two accounts he is told to go into the city where instructions will be given to him. When testifying before King Agrippa, however, Paul embellishes the story. Here he says that Jesus himself instructed him in great detail right there on the spot (Acts 26:15-18). This passage bears all the earmarks of a forgery. Something that has always puzzled me about the story of Paul's conversion is that after the shock of seeing the bright light and hearing the disembodied voice ask, "Why persecutest thou me?," his first comment was, "Who are you?" Now considering that the sole purpose of his mission was to persecute Jesus' followers, shouldn't it have been obvious? Acts 23:3 ~ In a fit pique Paul openly curses the high priest. When reminded that it is unlawful to curse the rulers (Exodus 22:28), Paul replies, "I was not aware that I was talking to the high priest." This is hard to believe indeed when one considers that he had recently been an agent of the high priest and had in fact directly petitioned him for letters authorizing the arrest and persecution of Christian Jews living in Damascus. Romans 1:3 ~ "Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," says Paul. Although this statement agrees fully with the one made by Jesus in Revelation 22:16, it flies in the face of everything we are told in the gospels. In Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 we learn that Mary was made pregnant with Jesus not by Joseph, who was of the Davidic line, but by the Holy Ghost. This creates a really big problem for Bible believers. First, although Joseph was of David's line, he was not Jesus' father. Second, the Holy Ghost is a spirit and spirits have neither flesh nor blood. Third, "according to the flesh" could not have been referring to Mary's flesh because she was not from David's line. She was a Levite. So, if the birth narratives are to be believed, Jesus did not come from the seed of David, and Paul told another big lie. If, on the other hand, Revelation 22:16 is true and Paul is right, the writers of Matthew and Luke lied. Romans 1:16 ~ Paul announces that, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Salvation from sin through the blood of a man who died on a Roman cross is alien to everything in the Old Testament and to everything that is Jewish. When a fundamentalist Christians say that God made a new covenant with the Jews and sealed it with the blood of his son who is supposed to have died a sacrificial death one need simply tell them to read Jeremiah 31:29-30 , "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." Note that this passage makes no provision for anyone to die for the sins of others. Everyone shall die for his or her own sins, it says. Therefore, Jesus' death is in no way a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The Jewish way to salvation is given in Ezekiel 18:27 where it says. "When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness he will save his life." Notice that there is no mention of Jesus or a messiah. Romans 2:11 ~ Paul claims that, "There is no respect of persons with God." This statement contradicts Deut. 7:6 where it states that God selected a chosen people from among all the people of the world. Also, God had respect of persons between Cain and Able (Gen. 4:4-5). In Malachi 1:2-3 God openly expresses his love for Esau and his hatred for Jacob, Esau's brother? Romans 2:13 ~ According to Paul, "The doers of the law shall be justified." Later in 3-20 he contradicts this statement by saying, "Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." Romans 12:14 ~ Paul says, "Bless them that persecute you, bless and curse not." Although he preached this doctrine to others, Paul did not practice it. The truth is that he had a violent temper and held grudges. In I Corinthians 16:22 he openly cursed those who disagreed with him. He did it again in Galatians 1:9. These incidents show Paul to be a pious hypocrite. Another very revealing thing about Romans 12:14 is its close similarity to Matthew 5:10-12. Yet Paul never invokes Jesus nor the Sermon on the Mount from which it apparently came. Romans 14:1-8 ~ Here Paul says, "Let every man be persuaded in his own mind." In this chapter Paul outlines the code of law for Christian living according in which every one is free to do just as he or she pleases. Thus the law of the Old Testament is abandoned. This directly contradicts Jesus' unqualified endorsement of Old Testament law as recorded in Matthew 5:17-19. Romans 15:29 ~ "When I come unto you I will come in the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ." But when Paul did eventually go to Rome, he went as a prisoner under guard (Acts 28:16). I Corinthians 5:1 ~ Paul scolds the Corinthians, "It is reported that there is fornication among you." Here he is rebuking his followers because they took Romans 14:1-8 seriously. Paul is here put in the embarassing position of having to turn to the very law which he had earlier abrogated. In verse 5 he even orders the execution of a man who took his dead father's wife. It might be of interest here to note that according to I John 3:9, "He who is born of God cannot sin." Therefore Paul's converts could not have been born again believers. I Corinthians 6:5 ~ Paul asks, "Is it so that there is not one wise man among you?" Has he already forgotten his own exaltation back in 3:18? There he said, "If any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is but foolishness with God." I Corinthians 6:7 ~ True to the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:1 (Do not judge) or Matthew 5:39 (Do not be opposed to evil), or Luke 6:30, (If robbed, do not ask for your goods back), Paul recommends that his followers not go to the law to settle their disputes. "It is preferable," he says, "to suffer yourself to be defrauded." Had these recommendations been observed it would have robbed the world of its civilization and created a society dominated by lawless thugs. What this passage actually shows is that the early Christians were indeed capable of defrauding one another. All of these rebukes from Paul only go to show that his doctrine of free from the law (Romans 8:2) and saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8) did nothing more than give men the license to sin. I Corinthians 7:1 ~ Here Paul says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." This edict violates Jewish law. In Genesis 1:28 God's command is, "Be fruitful and multiply." If, however, all of Paul's followers had obeyed him in this matter, Christianity surely would have died out early in the second century for a lack of followers. I Corinthians 7:39 ~ "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth." This shows how little Paul knew of Jewish law for nowhere in the five books of Moses (the Pentateuch) can such a statement be found. According to Deut. 24:1-2 a man has the right to divorce his wife after which she is free to remarry. I Corinthians 9:20-22 ~ In this passage Paul is saying that it is okay to intentionally deceive people in order to convert them to Christ. I Corinthians 13:2 ~ "If I have not charity (love) then I am nothing." Paul showed very little charity toward those who disagreed with him. In Galatians 1:9 he says, "If anyone preach any other gospel, let him be accursed." So according to his own teachings he is nothing. I Corinthians 13:11 ~ Paul says, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Obviously he was unaware of Luke 18:17 where Jesus claraly says, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." 1 Corinthians 15:3 ~ Paul says, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture." Such a scripture has never been located. I Corinthians 15:5-6 ~ Here we have Paul's brief rendition of the resurrection of Jesus which contradicts that of the gospels. Paul says, "First he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (no mention of Mary Magdalene). After that he appeared to more than five hundred at once." This claim has been questioned by many, however, the earliest of which there is any record is that of Thomas Paine. In his great work, The Age of Reason Paine points out that, "It is only Paul who says that (the resurrected) Jesus was seen by five hundred at once. It is not the five hundred who say it for themselves. Who were they? Could their testimony be relied upon? It is, therefore, the testimony of only one man, Paul." Paine reminds us that Paul did not believe one word of the matter at the time it allegedly happened. "Paul's evidence," Paine points out, "is like that of a men who comes into a court of law today to swear that everything he swore to yesterday was a lie." II Corinthians 4:2 ~ Paul says, "We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." But in 12:16 he says of himself, "Being crafty, I caught you with guile." What a hypocrite! Galatians 1:18-19 ~ Paul recalls that, "After three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I not except James, the brother of the Lord." This contradicts the account given in Acts 9:27 where it says that Paul was brought to the apostles by Barnabas and was with them (the apostles) coming in and going out of Jerusalem. Galatians 3:15-16 ~ Paul's pronouncements come from Genesis 17:19. But consider what Paul does. God promises Abraham that his wife, Sarah, will bear him a son to be named Isaac. God then says he will establish an everlasting covenant with Isaac and with Isaac's seed after him. Paul claims that seed refers to Jesus. This amounts to nothing more than deceitful trickery. As used in Genesis, the word "seed" is a collective noun which implies the plural. It is referring not to an individual such as Jesus but to the Jewish people who will be the descendants, or seed, of Isaac. The process of secretly manipulating certain Old Testament passages so that they appear to be referring to Jesus is a technique widely used in Christian apologetics. It is easily recognized and refuted. Galatians 4:4 ~ Paul says, "God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law." Jesus was not born according to the law. His real father was the Holy Ghost as noted above. Therefore Jesus was born of an adulterous union. He was, in effect, a bastard. In that regard, see Exodus 20:14 and Deut. 23:2. Philippians 1:18 ~ Paul says, "Whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached I therein do rejoice." So Paul is here saying that it is okay to be deceitful so long as the message gets out. Here again II Cor. 4:2 and 12:16 are contradicted (See above.) Philippians 3:2 ~ Paul says, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of concision." Concision means any mutilation of the flesh. This, as it turns out, is a timely warning in view of Leviticus 22:20, where the Lord tells Moses that regarding sacrifices, "Whatsoever hath a blemish is not acceptable." But Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21), and this amounts to a mutilation of the flesh, a concision. Therefore Jesus was unacceptable according to Jewish law. Philippians 3:10 ~ Paul declares with great emotion, "All I care for is to know Christ, to express the power of his resurrection, to share in his suffering." Yet when he returns to Jerusalem it is merely to visit Peter. He never expresses the slightest desire to see Bethlehem, Jesus' birthplace, Nazareth, his home town, the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he is supposed to have held the fabled Last Supper, nor Calvary where the ultimate sacrifice was allegedly made. Most astonishing of all, however, is that there is not one hint of a pilgrimage to the tomb in which the resurrection, the center piece of Paul's theology, allegedly occurred. II Thessalonians 2:9 ~ It says, "Even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders." But in Matthew 28:18 we learn that, "All power in heaven and in earth was given unto Jesus." Again in Luke 21:27 we read that, "Jesus is coming with power and great glory." Now if all power belongs to Satan yet Jesus is the one with all of the power, doesn't that mean that Jesus and Satan are one and the same? I Timothy 2:15 ~ "Despite their many shortcomings, women can be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, charity, and holiness with sobriety." Although degrading, this seems to offer women access to salvation. But they shouldn't get their hopes up because in I Corinthians 7:8 Paul announces that it is better to remain unmarried. So if a woman doesn't have children, she is denied salvation. But she can't have children legally unless she is married. If she elects to have children out of wedlock, she will be declared a fornicator and thus denied salvation again (I Corinthians 6:9). For women this amounts to a catch 22. I Timothy 5:8 ~ Paul warns us that "If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." This directly contradicts Matthew 19:29 where Jesus tells Peter and the other disciples, "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." So after reading all of this would you buy a used car from the likes of Saint Paul? The writer of James 1:8 must have had Paul in mind when he wrote, "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways." For more information on Paul see The Pauline Epistles and The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance on this website. 1 Compiled by Louis W. Cable. 2 The Age of Reason. THE PAULINE EPISTLES1 Louis W. Cable The Apostle Paul is like the man who comes into a court of law today to sware that everything he swore to yesterday was a lie. Thomas Paine2 INTRODUCTION Identifying forgeries in the Bible is hard detective work. There is no "royal road." Every clue, every nuance no matter how subtle or insignificant it may seem, must be followed to its logical conclusion. Sometime the results are ambiguous and frustrating. They remain questionable, and I will point out a couple of examples. But perseverance often pays off, and the data confirm a suspected Bible forgery. So, although some of the suspected Bible forgeries may ultimately be proved authentic, others certainly will be substantiated. The so-called Pauline epistles are a good case in point. Paul was a Jew born at Tarsus, a city in Cilicia. The year of his birth is not known exactly but scholars put it at about 5 CE. His Jewish name was Saul which he used within the Jewish community, Paul being the Greek version. He is believed to have died in Rome around 65 CE. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. Outside the New Testament letters (epistles), there are no reliable sources for his life. In the New Testament the so-called Pauline epistles begin after the Book of Acts and include the next thirteen entries. They all begin with the words "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the . . ." But did he really write them? According to Encyclopedia Britannica CD98, Romans, I and II Corinthians, and Galatians are genuine. Opinion is divided on the authenticity of Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. Ephesians, Colossians, II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy and Titus are held by most scholars to be forgeries written considerably later than the time of Paul. The story of Paul's conversion and missionary career, as given in Acts, was probably written many years after his death therefore its authenticity is also questionable. This paper is compiled from the publications of several outstanding Bible scholars (see References). The purpose is to review the bases for evaluating the Pauline epistles as to their authenticity or lack thereof. The results are summarized in the Attachment. Before reviewing the epistles themselves, however, let us consider some general observations of scholars concerning the Pauline epistles and other early Christian documents. Graham Page 410: Paul is but the Moses of the New Testament, carrying on where Joseph or in this case, Jesus, left off. The cue to this parallel is given in Acts, chapter 7 which recounts the whole story of Moses so that we may see the connection. Martin Page 38: The first Christian documents to characterize Jesus in a way that roughly corresponds to the accounts in the gospels (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter, 1 Clement, seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch) were written somewhere between 90 and 110. This is after the gospels had been written and circulated. Why does no biographical information appear in the earlier documents (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter and possibly also the letters of James and 1, 2, and 3 John?) The only plausible answer to this question is that Jesus’ biography is pure fiction invented late in the 1st century. It was unknown to the earlier writers. Page 56: An important clue against the historicity of the Jesus of the gospels is that the early and later non-Pauline epistles picture him differently. Those likely to have been written before 90 (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James,) refer to Jesus in basically the same way as do the authentic Pauline epistles. They stress the resurrection and second coming but do not refer to the ethical teachings or the miracles Jesus allegedly performed; they say nothing about his birth, baptism, trial, crucifixion, and death. On the other hand, the later epistles, those written after 90 (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus) begins to portray Jesus as he is in the gospels placing him in a definite time period as do other late first century documents such as 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, the first epistle of Clement, and the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp. They obviously were influenced by the gospels. Ephesians, thought to have been written between 80 and 90, is one of the earlier Pauline forgeries. It gives no detail of Jesus’ life and teachings and consequently provides no conformation that Jesus lived in the early part of the first century. In 4:25-32 the author advocates speaking the truth, controlling anger, doing honest work, and being mutually forgiving and kind, yet he never cites the teachings of Jesus. One can only infer that he had no knowledge of them. Wells - (HEJ) Page 20: - It often comes as a shock to many lay readers to learn that the (authentic) epistles of Paul predate the gospels. Although the gospels purport to deal with the life of Jesus (4BCE? - 30?), they were actually written between 70 and 110. The authentic Pauline epistles were written between 55 and 60. Therefore, it is these epistles, not the gospels, which provide the most plausible clues as to how the earliest Christians regarded Jesus. Page 22: The Pauline epistles considered to be genuine are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul, who could not have been ignorant of them had they really happened. These letters make not a single reference to the parents of Jesus nor to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him "of Nazareth"). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas Iscariot, Jesus’ alleged betrayer. They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus personally and been associated with him while he was alive. Paul’s failure to mention Peter’s denial of Christ (Mk.14:30, 66-72, and parallels) is highly significant. Paul’s letter to the Galatians reveals that his position as leader of the Christian community at Antioch was threatened by Peter (a.k.a. Cephas), whom he calls a hypocrite (Gal. 2:11-13). The denial, coupled with Jesus’ stern warning in Matthew 10:33 , would have been a powerful weapon he could have used against Peter. Why didn’t he? Paul’s silence is rightly interpreted as compelling evidence that the denial story is a forgery. Paul claims to have won converts "by the power of signs and wonders" (Rom. 15:19). He seems to be completely unaware that Jesus said that there shall be no sign given to this generation (Mark 8:12). He also fails to mention the many wonders (miracles) which, according to the gospels, Jesus routinely performed. He obviously didn’t know of them. Another striking feature of Paul’s letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher. In fact, Paul presents a considerable amount of ethical teachings in his own name, with no suggestion that Jesus had taught anything of the kind, even though the gospels later put exactly the same doctrines into Jesus’ mouth. AUTHENTIC Mack Page 126: First and Second Corinthians are authentic but are actually collections of portions of six different letters. Page 137: Romans is authentic. It provides a comprehensive elaboration of Paul’s gospel and is the earliest systematic treatise of a rationale for the Christian myth. Remsberg Page 41: Four Epistles, - Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, and Galatians - are generally admitted to be the genuine writings of Paul. They are believed to have been written about a quarter of a century after the alleged death of Jesus. In fact, they are the only documents in the entire New Testament whose authenticity can be maintained and whose author is known. Robertson Page 105: The Paul of Galatians and the Paul the Acts are two different men. First Corinthians is for the most part authentic but appears to have been altered probably after Paul’s death (10:1-22.) Page 109: Second Corinthians affords conclusive evidence that the Jesus of Pauline Christianity was not the same as the Jesus portrayed in the gospels. The Pauline Christ is "the Spirit" (3:17-18) and "the image of God" (4:4) not a real person. Page 144: Philippians is composed of three letter fragments crudely joined together. Teeple The Pauline Epistles considered to be authentic include Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, 1st Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon. However, they do contain some late Christian interpolations. These include Phil 2:6-11; 1st Cor. 11:23-26; 12:31; 14:1a; 15:3-11. Observe that when the interpolations are removed, the texts immediately above and below the insertion fit together naturally. Wells (HEJ) Page 21: Romans, 1& 2 Corinthians and Galatians are universally accepted as authentic. The computer techniques tried on them by Morton and McLeman have confirmed that they have a common author. Internal evidence indicates that this author wrote before 70, for the references to his contacts with a Christian community at Jerusalem show that the catastrophic destruction of that city in the Judeo/Roman War (67 - 70) had not yet occurred. Indeed, Paul must have been a Christian before 40 for he tells how King Aretas of the Nabateans, who is known to have died in that year, had sought to have him arrested because of his Christian activities (2 Cor. 11:32). He probably wrote somewhere between 55 and 60 for he tells the Galatians that he had been a Christian for at least fourteen years at the time of writing. THE PASTORALS3 Eddy Page 26: Although purported to have been written by Paul, the relatively complex church organization reflected by the Pastorals did not exist until many years after Paul’s death. Mack Page 206: The Pastorals were undoubtedly written during the first half of the 2nd century. They were not included in Marcion’s list of Paul’s letters (ca.140). Quotations from them first appear in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies (180) and their content fits nicely into the situation and thought of the church in the mid-second century. Their attribution to Paul is a forgery for their language and thought are clearly unPauline. Also, references to particular occasions in the lives of Titus, Timothy, and Paul do not fit with reconstructions of that history taken from the authentic letters. The New Oxford Annotated Bible Page 300 NT: The vocabulary and style of these letters differ widely from the acknowledged letters of Paul; some of his leading theological themes are entirely absent (the union of the believer with Christ, the power and witness of the Spirit, freedom from the law), and some of the expressions bear a different meaning from that in his customary usage ("the faith" as a synonym for the Christian religion rather than the believer’s relationship to Christ). Oxford Companion to the Bible Page 574 (Paraphrase): Second Timothy, although attributed to Paul, is found by many scholars to be so unPauline in vocabulary, style, theological concepts, church order, emphasis on tradition and in contrast with the chronology of his career as given in Acts and Romans, that it is widely considered to be a forgery. Remsberg Page 41: That the Pastorals are forgeries is now conceded by all critics. According to German critics they belong to the second century. They were certainly composed after the death of Paul. Robertson Page 129: As to the Pastorals, most scholars now agree that they are second-century forgeries. They deal with second-century situations. These documents were not written by Paul. Till The conclusion that the Pastorals were not written by Paul is based on various things: the style and vocabulary of the epistles, the church organization that they depict, references to heresies that didn't develop until the second century, late inclusion of these books into the collection of Pauline epistles, lack of references to them in the writings of the early church fathers, etc. Eerdman's Bible Dictionary gives a fairly good discussion of these matters under "The Pastoral Epistles," but The Interpreter's Bible would be a better source. Wells (DJE ) Page 17-18: It is widely agreed that the Pastorals are mostly forgeries although Titus and 2 Timothy may contain some genuine notes from Paul. Wells (HEJ) Page 90: Analyses show all the Pastorals were from the same hand but not from Paul's hand. For example, Paul’s theology is very imperfectly represented in them. Also, the controversy over keeping the Jewish law was a hot topic in the authentic Paulines. Whereas in the Pastorals it is no longer an issue. So, they must be of a later date. Page 94: The church hierarchy described in the Pastorals is much too advanced to represent that of the early church of Paul’s day. In 1 Tim. 3:6 it says "the bishop must not be a recent convert," a statement which shows that at the time of writing the church had been in existence for quite some time. SECOND THESSALONIANS Eddy Page 184: Second Thessalonians was forged in Paul’s name shortly after his death or during the late stages of his imprisonment in Rome. Scholars believe it was written to offset the disappointment and unrest then rising in the Christian community resulting from the unfulfilled promise of an imminent second coming (2 Thes. 2:1-8). Mack Page 112: Second Thessalonians was not written by Paul. It lacks the personal warmth, reminiscences, and references characteristic of the authentic letters. Almost one-third of it is verbatim copy from 1st Thessalonians. The eschatology reflects a development of Christian apocalyptic thinking of the kind that took place only after the Judeo/Roman war. Second Thessalonians adds nothing to our knowledge of Paul’s gospel. Its only importance is in documenting the fact that some "Pauline epistles" were forged. Remsberg Page 41-42: Second Thessalonians, a self evident forgery, declares 1st Thessalonians to be a forgery (3:17). Robertson Page 108: Second Thessalonians is a forgery. Its vocabulary is peculiar; it deals with a theme (the persecution of the righteous which is to precede the second coming) mentioned nowhere else in the authentic Pauline epistles; and it seems to be written expressly to discredit the statement in 1st Thessalonians that "the day of the Lord" will come "as a thief in the night" (5:2,) i.e., any day now and without warning. Wells (DJE) Pages 17-18: Second Thessalonians is considered to be a forgery. It presents an ecclesiastical organization of a more advanced kind than existed in Paul’s day. That letters were written in Paul’s name (forged) is clear from exhortations not to be misled "by some letters purporting to be from us" (2 Thess. 2:2,) and from the fact that the author of this epistle finds it necessary (3:17) to authenticate himself with his signature. Wells (HEJ) Page 49-50: Most investigators regard Second Thessalonians (half the length of the first) as having been derived from the first letter. If Paul had written Second Thessalonians, it seems unlikely that he would have used so many of the same phrases. Also, The second letter is in an entirely different style than the first. Second Thessalonians contradicts First Thessalonians regarding the second coming. In the first letter Jesus is expected to return soon and will come unheralded "like a thief in the night," at a time of apparent peace and security (5:1-3). In Second Thessalonians the second coming is not to be expected soon. According to chapter 2 it will be preceded by a series of upheavals. So the contradiction is sharp. If the end will be preceded by catastrophes, then it will not come when all is peace and security. It is difficult to assign a precise date to Second Thessalonians. However, most scholars suggest the mid-80s. EPHESIANS and COLOSSIANS Mack Page 183: The letters to the Ephesians and Colossians, thought to have been written between 80 and 90, were not written by Paul. There is no suggestion of the personal Paul in either of them. The style, the vocabulary, and the rhetoric are different from the authentic Paulines. They were written in Paul’s name after his death probably by scribes loyal to the school that survived him. They are included among the Pauline letters because by the time the church started drawing up lists of literature acceptable for public reading in the third and fourth centuries, Ephesians and Colossians were already a part of the "letters of Paul." Martin Page 184: In Ephesians Paul’s teachings are diluted. No mention is made of his heated arguments for freedom from the Jewish law, the justification of sinners, faith in Christ, scriptural precedence, epic revisions or apocalyptic scenarios and threats. These are the topics that dominate the authentic letters. Page 188: Paul used the term "congregation" to refer to a local group whereas the author of Ephesians used the term in the singular to refer to the church universal. The New Oxford Annotated Bible Page 272 NT: There are important contrasts between Ephesians and the letters that we can confidently ascribe to Paul. Many of the words in Ephesians do not appear elsewhere in the apostle’s correspondence, and some important terms have a different meaning here from their meaning in letters that are surely Paul’s. The style, with its loose collection of phrases and clauses and long sentences, is not characteristic of Paul’s writing. Ephesians is, therefore, judged to be a forgery. Wells (HEJ) Page 21: Colossians is judged to have been written not by Paul but by one of his pupils. Paul’s ideas as expressed in Romans (6:3-5) have been greatly modified. Page 53: Ephesians was written about 90, some 25 years after Paul’s death. During Paul’s lifetime the terms for admitting gentiles into the church was at the core of a protracted controversy. Ephesians addresses the gentiles (2:11) in a situation where such problems have been solved. Therefore, it has to be of a much later date. Wells (DJE) Pages 17-18: Colossians and Ephesians are considered forgeries. They present an ecclesiastical organization of a more advanced kind than existed in Paul’s day. For example, according to Ephesians 2:20-21 the faithful are said to be dependent not directly on Jesus but on officers of the Church. This is a clear contradiction of 1 Cor. 3:11. HEBREWS The Epistle to the Hebrews, although not designated a Pauline epistle, is included here out of interest. Graham Page 410: "The Epistle to the Hebrews was written by Barnabas, not by Paul" said Tertullian (160?-230?) Page 410: "Who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews God only knows," Origen (185?-254?) Mack Page 189: The author of Hebrews is unknown. However, it was not Paul. Its concept of Christianity is different from any of the early Christian writers. Remsberg Page 42: Hebrews does not purport to be a Pauline document. Martin Luther says in the Standing Preface to his N. T., "The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by Paul, nor, indeed, by any apostle." In fact, the spurious origin of Hebrews is recognized right away because it never claims authorship by Paul. Wells (HEJ) Page 55: Many Bibles ascribe Hebrews to Paul although it does not purport to come from him and is not written in his style. A major concern of the author of Hebrews is to argue that God had set aside as outmoded the sacrificial system of the old covenant. But the writer who intended to discredit Jewish sacrificial ritual might reasonably be expected to point to the destruction of the temple in 70, had he been writing after this date. If he had written after 70 he could hardly have been unaware of this catastrophic event. For this reason it is reasonable to assume that Hebrews was written sometime between 60 and 70. The failure of the author to refer to gospel material germane to his argument is important. He was obviously unaware of the gospels and the Jesus they portray. Also, the author takes the view (unknown to Paul) that there can be no second repentance (6:4-6). Apostesy (the denial of scripture) is the unforgivable sin. Therefore, he could not have been aware of the story of Peter’s denial. CONCLUSION Of the thirteen epistles ascribed to Paul in the Bible, only five can be identified as authentic with any degree of certainty. Yet, all thirteen are headed with the bold inscription, THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO . . . Such blatant subterfuge in the face of undeniable evidence amounts to a most scandalous and irresponsible deception. I know of no minister of the gospel who has ever had the intestinal fortitude go before his congregation and make this revelation. They, instead, proudly promote themselves as paragons of virtue and honesty; purveyors of truth - the only truth. Intellectual dishonesty is their stock in trade. For more information on Paul see The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance and Would You Buy a Used Car From St. Paul? on this website. REFERENCES Eddy, Patricia G., Who Tampered With the Bible?, 1993. Graham, Lloyd M., Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, 1979. Mack, Burton L., Who Wrote the New Testament?, 1995. Martin, Michael, The Case Against God, 1991. Remsberg, John E., The Christ, 1909. Robertson, Archibald, The Origins of Christianity, 1954. Teeple, Howard M., Personal communication Till, Farrell, E-mail message of 4/1/96. Wells, G. A., Did Jesus Exist?, 1986. Wells, G. A., The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 1988. ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT1 Table summarizing the evaluation of the Pauline epistles as rendered by seven recognized Bible scholars (see References). A = authentic, F = forgery, Q = questionable, ? = not given. Epistles Eddy1 Mack2 Martin3 Remsberg4 Robertson5 Teeple6 Wells7 Romans A A A A Q A A 1 Cor. A A A A A A A 2 Cor. A A A A F A A Galatians A A A A A A A Ephesians F F F F ? F F Philippians A A Q Q F A Q Colossians ? F Q F F F F 1 Thes. A A A Q A A Q 2 Thes. F F F F F F F 1 Timothy F F F F F F F 2 Timothy F F F F F F F Titus F F F F F F F Philemon A A Q Q A A Q REFERENCES 1 Eddy, Patricia G.; Who Tampered With the Bible? 2 Mack, Burton L.; Who Wrote the New Testament? 3 Martin, Michael; The Case Against Christianity. 4 Remsberg, John E.; The Christ. 5 Robertson, Archibald; The Origins of Christianity. 6 Teeple, Howard M.; Personal correspondence. 7 Wells, G. A.; The Historical Evidence for Jesus. ________________________________________________________________________ 1 Compiled by Louis W. Cable The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance1 Louis W. Cable Paul's writing is no better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told. Thomas Paine2 Let us consider the question of Paul's ignorance, perhaps the most perplexing problem confronting the defenders of the historical Jesus. The Apostle Paul, often referred to as the founder of Christianity, seems to have been totally unaware of any details of Jesus' life and teachings as they are presented in the gospels. Nowhere does Paul equate his hero, Jesus Christ, with a man from Nazareth recently put to death in Judea. Why? Paul's dates are not definitely known, but he is believed to have lived from somewhere around 53 to around 674. Although these dates may not be exact, the traditional dates of Jesus’ ministry (27-30) fall well within them. When Jesus was supposed to have been active in his ministry, Paul was a grown man in his early to mid twenties living and working in Jerusalem. He claims to have studied under the famous rabbinical teacher, Gamaliel, and to have been closely associated with the political and religious leaders of that day (Acts 22:3-5). During the alleged time of Jesus, Jerusalem was a city of approximately 120,000 people5, not significantly large. Therefore, Paul must have heard of the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus. How could he have missed Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem which, according to Matthew 21:9-11, attracted great multitudes6. How could he not have heard about Jesus’ cleansing of the temple which incurred the wrath of the chief priests and the scribes (Matthew 21:15)? As an enforcer of the law, how could Paul not have known of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas Iscariot resulting in his arrest by soldiers and police from the chief priests and the Pharisees (John 18:3). He does not refer to Judas' accidental death which, according to Acts 1:19, was known to all of the residents of Jerusalem. Paul must have been aware of Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate and the ensuing crucifixion with its attendant anomalies such as darkness at noon and earthquakes. Why didn't he mention the resurrection of the saints (Matthew 27:52-53), certainly the most astounding event in history. He never mentions the amputation by Peter of the right ear of Malchus, the chief priest's slave (John 18:10) and its miraculous reattachment by Jesus (Luke 22:51)? Surely Paul encountered Jesus sometime during those years so crucial to what was to become the Christian religion. Yet, not a single reference to these important events appears anywhere in his writings. What makes it stranger still is that in Luke 24:18-20 Cleopas says that everybody in Jerusalem knew about Jesus whom he described as "a prophet mighty in deed and word." According to Paul, the only encounter he ever had with Jesus was that famous incident which allegedly occurred on the road to Damascus. The Book of Acts records three separate versions of this encounter none of which agrees with the other two. For example, in Acts 9:7, Paul says that the men with him "heard the voice." But in Acts 22:9 he says they "did not hear the voice." The other contradiction lies in the manner in which Paul claims to have received his instructions. According to the first two accounts, Jesus didn't say very much. He told Paul to go into the city where he would be told what he must do (9:6 and 22:10). However, in his defense before King Agrippa (26:12-18) Paul tells a different story. Here he says that Jesus instructed him in great detail right there on the spot. The accounts of Paul's experience on the road to Damascus are second-hand testimony recorded by an unknown author long after the events are alleged to have taken place. There are no affidavits or other legal documents confirming the experience. Besides, if the accounts are accurate, the witnesses could not have agreed to anything except that they saw a bright light. Paul tells in II Cor. 11:32-33 how he made a daring escape from the agents of King Aretas who were out to arrest him. Aretas is known to have died in the year 407 thus putting Paul’s conversion and the beginning of his career as an evangelist in the very late 30s, less than ten years after the alleged crucifixion. Therefore, he should have been personally acquainted with many who had had direct contact with Jesus during his lifetime. For example, he went to Jerusalem where he spent fifteen days with Peter (Galatians 1:18), whom Jesus had personally selected to be his earthly successor (Mt. 16:17-19). What did they talk about if not Jesus? Those Pauline epistles considered to be genuine (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and perhaps Philippians and Philemon) were written between 50 and 60. They predate the gospels and are among the earliest extant Christian writings. Therefore, one would expect them to contain a wealth of details about Jesus' life and teachings, details confirming the gospel accounts. But this is far from the case. Concerning the alleged virgin birth Paul says only that, "Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4). The time, place and circumstances of Jesus’ birth, recorded in such great detail in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, are never mentioned. Paul says not one word about Joseph, Jesus’ surrogate father who figures so prominently in the birth narratives. Also, Paul apparently never heard of John the Baptist who not only baptized Jesus, but who is said to have been instrumental in the fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies said to confirm Jesus as the long awaited messiah. The most interesting of them all, however, is that in Romans 1:4 Paul says that Jesus was not officially recognized as "the Son of God" until after the resurrection. "Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," says Paul in Romans 1:3. This statement flies in the face of everything we are told in the gospels. In Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 we learn that Mary was made pregnant with Jesus not by Joseph, to whom she was betrothed, but by the Holy Ghost. This creates a really big problem for Bible believers. First, although Joseph was of David's line, he was not Jesus' father. Second, the Holy Ghost is a spirit and spirits do not have flesh and blood. Third, "according to the flesh" could not have been referring to Mary's flesh because she was not from David's line. So if the birth narratives are to be believed, Jesus did not come from the seed of David, and Paul told another big lie. In Matthew 23 Jesus bitterly denounces the scribes and the Pharisees, accusing them of being nothing more than a bunch of worthless hypocrites out to get him. Apparently Paul was unaware of this because when testifying before the chief priest and the Council he proudly proclaims, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” (Acts 23:6). First Corinthians 15:45 begins with the familiar words, “So it is written . . .” But where? Here Paul claims to quote scriptures that are nowhere to be found. There is no mention anywhere in the Hebrew Bible of a second Adam. This second Adam, according to Paul, is none other than Jesus who came directly from heaven as a man, an adult (1 Cor. 15:47). Therefore, Paul’s Jesus could not have been born of a virgin in Bethlehem. In Philippians 3:10-11 Paul declares with great emotion, “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” Yet when he returns to Jerusalem it is merely to visit Peter, as mentioned above. He never expresses the slightest desire to see Bethlehem, Jesus’ birthplace, Nazareth, his home town, the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he is supposed to have held the fabled Last Supper, nor Calvary where the ultimate sacrifice was allegedly made. Most astonishing of all, however, is that there is not one hint of a pilgrimage to the tomb in which the resurrection, the center piece of Paul’s theology, is supposed to have taken place. Paul makes no references to Jesus' ethical and moral teachings in situations where it would have been in his best interest to have done so. He, in fact, contradicts some of them. For example, Paul held that gentile Christians need not obey Jewish law to be saved (Gal. 3:8-9 and 5:6). Evidently he was unaware that this was a direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus on this matter (Matthew 5:17-19). Furthermore when Paul does make such ethical pronouncements as "Bless those who persecute you" (Romans 12:14), he does not cite the authority of Jesus (Matthew 5:10-12). Apparently Paul never heard of the Sermon on the Mount. When Paul, in Romans 8:26, says “we do not know how to pray as we should,” does this mean he was unaware that Jesus taught the Lord’s Prayer to his disciples (Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4)? Did Paul not know of Jesus’ prayer against temptation (Mark 14:35-36 and parallels) or the famous farewell prayer (John 17)? In 2 Cor. 12:12 Paul states, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you . . . by signs and wonders and miracles." Surely Paul would have cited Jesus' miracles at this point, had he been aware of them. We can only surmise that Paul had no knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus as they are presented in the gospels. In his first Epistle to the Thessalonians (4:15-17) Paul assures his audience that the kingdom of God is at hand and will, in fact, take place during their lifetime. "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together," he tells them. Why at this point did he not appeal to the authority of Jesus himself who in Matthew 16:28 tells his listeners, "There are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The answer is obvious. Paul never heard of the man, Jesus of Nazareth. At the time Paul was preaching the Jesus myth had not yet been concocted. Those Pauline epistles which do characterize Jesus in a way corresponding to the gospels such as the pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) have been shown to be forgeries written not by Paul but by persons unknown probably early in the second century. By that time the gospels had been written and distributed throughout the Christian communities of that day. The authors of these epistles undoubtedly relied on them as a source of information. All of this lends heavy credence to the view currently held by many Bible scholars that the canonical gospels are fiction pure and simple. The Jesus they depict is a myth and nothing more. For more information on Paul see The Pauline Epistles and Would You Buy a Used Car From St. Paul? on this website. _____________________________________________________ 1 Compiled by Louis W. Cable. 2 The Age of Reason. 3 All dates are Christian era (CE) unless otherwisw indicated. 4 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, under Biographical Entries. 5 Encyclopedia Judaica - population and area of Jerusalem during the time of Pontius Pilate (26-36). 6 In the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia "multitude" is defined as a number too great to count. 7 Brownrigg, Ronald - Who’s Who in the New Testament - Holt, Rinehart and Wenston, 1971 - page 34. 8 Mack, Burton L., Who Wrote the New Testament? pgs. 206 - 207. 1. http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld - This is Dennis McKinsey's website. He, as most of us know, published Biblical Errancy, a periodical which focused on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists. The periodical is no longer published, but all issues complete with an index is available on his website. Mr. McKinsey is the author of The Encyclopedia on Biblical Errancy, an excellent reference book. 2. http://www.jibp.israel.net - The Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, an Israel based organization, publishes Biblical Polemics, a bi-monthly magazine dedicated to the refutation of Christian missionary teachings and to the repudiation of religious fundamentalism. 3. http://users.uniserve.com/~tfrisen/Jesgenco.html - Compares the genealogies of Jesus as given in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Here an effort is made to match Matthew's genealogy to that of Luke. However, out of the 41 names listed in Matthew, only 17 are duplicated in Luke. This is strange, indeed, considering that both genealogies are for Joseph, who was not Jesus' father. The claim by some Christian apologists that one genealogy is for Joseph, while the other for Mary is no where supported in the Bible. 4. http://users.uniserve.com/~tfrisen/c20-21ge.html - More information of the genealogies of Jesus. 5. http://users.uniserve.com/~tfrisen/Chrispov.html - Presents a listing with comments of Bible verses causing big problems for rich Christians. 6. http://errancy@infidels.org - The Secular Web is the product of Internet Infidels, Inc., a non-profit organization dedicated to providing, information over the Internet about the existence of a god, church/state separation, the possibility of life after death, mysticism and the paranormal, and the interface between science and religion, and the philosophy of religion. 7. http://users.uniserve.com/~tfrisen/welcome.html - The purpose of this website is to offer justification and confidence to anyone now in the process of rejecting traditional beliefs. 8. http://www.AtheistAlliance.org - Atheist Alliance Inc. (AAI) is a democratic association of 13 independent, autonomous atheist societies including clubs, groups, societies, organizations, and associations world wide. 9. http://www.infidels.org/org/ffrf/fttoday - Freethought Today, the only freethought newspaper in North America, is published 10 times a year by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It covers timely news related to state/church separation, Black Collar Crimes (mainly clergy sexual abuse of children), freethought articles, as well as profiles of freethinkers. 10. http://www.bee.net/cardigan/attic/attic4.htm - Atheist Attic, a repository of essays about or relating to freethought issues. If you're in that questioning stage, unsure of your faith, you will hopefully find words here that will help you see things from a different angle. 11.http://www.thepoint.net/~effields - Wisdom Web. This web site is directed by Emmett F. Fields and provides information on his digital CDs of lost freethought books as well as on other freethought items. 12. http://www.inu.net/skeptic - Skeptics Corner. Provides a series of essays summarizing rational arguments refuting biblical claims. 13. http://www.teleport.com/~packham/atheist.htm - by Richard Packham. An excellent web site with much useful information for freethinkers. 14. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2260/ - The purpose of this Web Site is to promote science and clear thinking. It examines certain issues in the light of reason. ______________________________________________________
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Replying to:
Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author) "My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])
Thomas Jefferson "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." (All references not listed here, can be found in Christianity Betrayed)
Albert Schweitzer "Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."
Wil Durant (Philospher) "Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ." "Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
Walter Kaufmann (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton) "Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."
George Bernard Shaw "No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."
Thomas Hardy "The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."
Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar) "As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome. Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation." (The Mythmaker, p. 139, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)
Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher) "If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul." (Paraphrased. Looking for a copy of "Not Paul, but Jesus" in order to retrieve the exact quote.)
Carl Jung (Psychologist) "Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." (U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)
Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark) "Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference." (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)
|
 |
|