Christianity's true founder, Paul, admits fabrication

7

786

Searching for Truth
Valued Senior Member
We can find in the Bible a sworn affidavit by Paul that he is guilty of fabrication. Sound incredible? Let us have a look:

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29

"Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."
Acts 26:19-21

Contradicted by:

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Galatians 1:15-23

With regard to the first two passages, Reverend Dr. Davies in "The First Christian," says: "These assertions are not inconsistent with each other, but are damaging for another reason,: they are contradicted by Paul himself in his letter to the Galatians (Chapters 1 and 2)." Rev. Davies draws attention to Paul's oath: "Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God I do not lie," which makes his account a sworn affidavit.

Some of the contradictions are:

1) Galatians claims that after his alleged vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway," if at all, preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?).

2) According to Galatians, Paul did not go to Jerusalem where the apostles were. Rather, he went to Arabia then to Damascus. Now, after at least THREE YEARS (not many days), he goes to Jerusalem. It explicitly states that "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles." So this is claimed to be his FIRST visit to Jerusalem after his claimed vision. This FIRST visit is claimed to have occurred at least THREE YEARS after Paul's alleged vision. However, Acts claims that MANY DAYS after his vision he traveled to Jerusalem and performed a bold preaching campaign with all the apostles. Acts also mentions no intermediate journey to Arabia.

3) According to Galatians, upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem he met Peter and James and no other apostles. He can not have met any apostles in Jerusalem before this because he claims that immediately after his vision "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles" Rather, it claims that he FIRST went to Jerusalem at least "three years" after his claimed vision. On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time he met ALL of the apostles. This too is obviously his first meeting with them since they all feared him. Notice the words "they were ALL afraid of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to the other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him. Also notice that it was only Barnabas who stood up for him and not Barnabas, Peter, and James.

4) Galatians claims that after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem all the apostles feared him but then Barnabas convinced them to accept him and they ALL went hand in hand "in and out of Jerusalem" preaching "boldly" to the Jews. However, Acts claims that his first visit to Jerusalem was after THREE YEARS and upon this FIRST visit he met ONLY Peter and James. He is not claimed to have gone with Peter and James on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem, nor could he have done so in the past with ALL of the apostles since if he had done so he would not have been "unknown by face to the churches of Judea," they would also not have "heard only" of his conversion but would have eye-witnessed his bold campaign with all of the apostles with their own eyes.

If the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament can not even keep the narration of his own "salvation" straight then how are we expected to believe him in such critical matters as the "true" meanings of Jesus' words, or other matters?
 
Last edited:
*************
M*W: 786, your message is profound and true. It never ceases to amaze me that Muslims know more about Christianity than its own believers! I appreciate the time you took to post this, but I doubt that any of them are willing to go beyond their lying bible to read this.

Salaam
 
Can we assume there are contradictions and fabrications in the Quran as well?
 
@ 786

All I'm saying is that making it a little more concise will attract more input.


Coulda sworn tiassa had something to do with writing this... ;)
 
(Q) said:
To SouthStars request here is 1 point which is in my 1st post. There are other important points aswell. But for those, I recommend you read the whole thing, which is my first post.

Your post? You plagirizing bastard!

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Articles/saint_paul.htm
Click to expand...

Well, it is my post, don't you think. That is different that the information is not mine. But I have reviewed the information to see if it is true or not. And I found it to be true. And I really didn't chose to show the whole thing here. I have changed it though. And anyways it is all sourced information (i.e Mark 2:1), I cannot change the source can I.
 
Last edited:
Well that's a little more to the point for me to address to you.

I will address your 'contradictions' here in the order you provided.

1) Confer: to bestow from or as if from a position of superiority <conferred an honorary degree on her>
2 : to give (as a property or characteristic) to someone or something

intransitive senses : to compare views or take counsel

Unfortunately, your first contradiction is yet again another misinterpretation of the meaning of the word, confer. 'Confer' in this context means to take counsel.

This is EASILY evidenced by reading Matthew 16:17, which utilizes the very same sense. In the context of Galatians, as you can EVIDENTLY see from the semi-colon, confer revers to his calling which was conferred by God, instead of "flesh and blood".

2) As a point of reference, Paul's journey to Arabia is not referenced explicitly in Acts. As we see in Acts 9:23, "many days" referred to the 'gap' during which Paul travelled to Arabia. You are unfortunately misinterpreting the context of 'many days' and 'three years', which are actually one and the same. For evidence of its true meaning, see 1 Kings 2:38-39, where the SAME play on words is utilized to the disrepute of your argument.

3) As I have already clarified with point #2, 'many days' is synonymous with 'three years' in this context therefore that part of your argument is invalid. The reason they were afraid is easier clarified by the same verse in Galatians 1:23, which is that he was persecuting them at first. Obviously, if he was persecuting them they had good reason to fear that he was in their presence. This is evidence of a lack of cordial believe that Paul was actually trully saved, instead of trying to simply trick them. You must remember that these were people who were sought after to be killed, they would obviously not be casual believers when one of their most notorious enemies was reported to have been saved.

4) Here you are again dearly mistaken. When Barnabas brought Paul to 'the apostles', the phrase 'the apostles' is in reference to Peter and James since the remaining apostles were not present at the time. At don't see what the problem here is?
 
§outh§tar said:
Well that's a little more to the point for me to address to you.

I will address your 'contradictions' here in the order you provided.

1) Confer: to bestow from or as if from a position of superiority <conferred an honorary degree on her>
2 : to give (as a property or characteristic) to someone or something

intransitive senses : to compare views or take counsel

Unfortunately, your first contradiction is yet again another misinterpretation of the meaning of the word, confer. 'Confer' in this context means to take counsel.

This is EASILY evidenced by reading Matthew 16:17, which utilizes the very same sense. In the context of Galatians, as you can EVIDENTLY see from the semi-colon, confer revers to his calling which was conferred by God, instead of "flesh and blood".

2) As a point of reference, Paul's journey to Arabia is not referenced explicitly in Acts. As we see in Acts 9:23, "many days" referred to the 'gap' during which Paul travelled to Arabia. You are unfortunately misinterpreting the context of 'many days' and 'three years', which are actually one and the same. For evidence of its true meaning, see 1 Kings 2:38-39, where the SAME play on words is utilized to the disrepute of your argument.

3) As I have already clarified with point #2, 'many days' is synonymous with 'three years' in this context therefore that part of your argument is invalid. The reason they were afraid is easier clarified by the same verse in Galatians 1:23, which is that he was persecuting them at first. Obviously, if he was persecuting them they had good reason to fear that he was in their presence. This is evidence of a lack of cordial believe that Paul was actually trully saved, instead of trying to simply trick them. You must remember that these were people who were sought after to be killed, they would obviously not be casual believers when one of their most notorious enemies was reported to have been saved.

4) Here you are again dearly mistaken. When Barnabas brought Paul to 'the apostles', the phrase 'the apostles' is in reference to Peter and James since the remaining apostles were not present at the time. At don't see what the problem here is?
Click to expand...

This is concerning 4.

All apostles were present.

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29
 
@ 786.

if the writing is not yours, please provide references such we may read and learn using our own resources and confirm reliability .....v;).....
 
786

Well, it is my post, don't you think.

You are really pathetic. First you plagiarize a website word for word and claim it to be your post. Now you go back and edit your posts for the evidence. How very sad. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Is this how Muslims act?
 
(Q) said:
786

Well, it is my post, don't you think.

You are really pathetic. First you plagiarize a website word for word and claim it to be your post. Now you go back and edit your posts for the evidence. How very sad. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Is this how Muslims act?
Click to expand...

You got me wrong man. Here let me make it clear. I said, "Well, it is my post, don't you think". Well that is true. I am the one who posted it, here. Right? You didn't post it, nor did anyone else. I didn't say the information was mine. I just said the post was mine. You misunderstood the words "my post". Well since I used most of the article, at first, then I thought to cut it to the point (as SouthStar suggested) which I thought was true. And anyways it was very long for someone to read. Since I double posted, so I thought to change my 1st post, and delete the other post, which I think you know about.

Anyways Knife the link that Q provided is fair. But I really didn't copy it from that link. It was another link, if you want I'll give it to you. But it has the same thing word to word, so really there is no use.

Anyways sorry about this, next time I'll just post the link, alright!
 
@ 786,

i am not here to put your post down or anything. just when you use other peoples words/articles/essays, even thoughts and conclusions in your post, it is wise to at least mention the source.

this way, the reader not only has a reference to the point you are trying to make, but it gives your post a good foundation, shows you yourself have researched the issue at hand, is curteous (sp?) to the original author and is just plain professional.

also, even if you are coming to a conclusion/point that you came to yourself but in the process of doing so you were reading other texts, mention those as well to give the readers a better understanding of where you are coming from.

one last thing, doing this also allows you to pass the buck pretty quick when you are in a tight corner.....;)

of course you can just ignore everything i just wrote, but i am only trying to help.

HEY VINCENT!!!......WWJD?
 
Knife said:
@ 786,

i am not here to put your post down or anything. just when you use other peoples words/articles/essays, even thoughts and conclusions in your post, it is wise to at least mention the source.

this way, the reader not only has a reference to the point you are trying to make, but it gives your post a good foundation, shows you yourself have researched the issue at hand, is curteous (sp?) to the original author and is just plain professional.

also, even if you are coming to a conclusion/point that you came to yourself but in the process of doing so you were reading other texts, mention those as well to give the readers a better understanding of where you are coming from.

one last thing, doing this also allows you to pass the buck pretty quick when you are in a tight corner.....;)

of course you can just ignore everything i just wrote, but i am only trying to help.

HEY VINCENT!!!......WWJD?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get it. I agree with you. I made a mistake. (Human nature :) )
Hey i'm curious, what does "WWJD" mean
 
what would jesus do.

in my opinion, it is a beautiful phrase and the purpose is even more so. it is the constant reminder to many christians to try to follow the teachings and philosphy of one of the most humblest men ever documented by history.

there are many who could use that kind of advice, and i dont just mean christians.

kinda makes you think of......wwjd.
 
Jesus would claim the article is His (and rightly so!) since He is the author of all things. :p
 
§outh§tar said:
Jesus would claim the article is His (and rightly so!) since He is the author of all things. :p
Click to expand...

but then it would be written by paul, who would then admit its fabrication, only to be posted by someone, who quoted someone else, to be reposted by someone else. :D :D
 
Paul didn't even write the biography of Jesus. He wasn't part of the thousands who heard Him speak and testified of His works either.

Besides, I'm done addressing 786 so-called 'contradictions'. It seems like he posts a thread of 'contradictions' every other day which almost to my unhappiness turn out to be horribly biased/misguided interpretations of a rather obvious text.

Either way, I don't know if any of you have heard of this, but although Paul wrote most of the books in the NT, I hear that he is not responsible for penning the greatest volume in the NT. This should be great evidence to those who think Paul is the founder of Christianity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top