"JESUS" (ISA) VS PAUL (SAUL)

​

Paul the "Apostle", originally known as Saul of Tarsus, was one of the major figures in Christianity. Paul was a Greek-speaking Jew from Asia Minor. His birthplace, Tarsus, was a major city in eastern Cilicia, a region that had been made part of the Roman province of Syria by the time of Paul’s adulthood.

 

Until about the midpoint of his life, Paul was a member of the Pharisees, a religious party that emerged during the later Second Temple period. What little is known about Paul the Pharisee reflects the character of the Pharisaic movement. Paul spent much of the first half of his life persecuting the Christian movement, an activity to which he mentioned several times.

 

Paul was on his way to Damascus when he claimed to have a vision that changed his life (Galatians 1:16). Paul claimed that he was struck blind by a bright light. In his vision, God revealed his Son to him. Paul regained his eyesight after his so-called conversion. God then named Paul as the successor to the mission of Jesus. Paul went into Arabia—probably Coele-Syria, west of Damascus (Galatians 1:17). He then returned to Damascus, and three years later he went to Jerusalem to become acquainted with the leading apostles there. In Acts 13:9, Saul is called "Paul" for the first time on the island of Cyprus, much later than the time of his conversion.

​

For those who have really studied the Bible, it is quite obviously that "Christianity" is actually a religion by Paul about Jesus.

Much of what the clergy preach on Sundays are usually quotes by Paul more often than by Jesus himself.

​

​

'SAINT PAUL ? THE 13TH APOSTLE AKA THE FALSE PROPHETPaul is considered one of the fake apostles that Jesus warned about. Why so?​

First of all, Paul never learned anything directly from Jesus. Everything that he claimed and knew were from a self-proclaimed vision.

If this happened in the present era, he would have probably been arrested and put into a mental institution.

​

​Secondly, comparing the gospels in the New Testament, you can see the stark difference between how the other apostles who studied under Jesus wrote, and the way Paul wrote.

​

The style in which Paul wrote is often arrogant, narcisstic even. Paul's teachings often went against the other Apostles, and at time even Jesus himeself.

 

Paul has never seen Jesus, or trained under Jesus like the rest of the Apostles.

Paul 'became a follower of Christ' after being struck blind, and his sight later restored after 'a vision of Jesus' giving him new instructions.

The other Apostles were still alive at that time, so why would Jesus give instructions to another, when he could have simply instructed his own disciples?

 

After Paul saw his 'vision', he was not eager to meet the the Apostles who had be under the direct tutelage of Jesus.

In fact, the Apostles had many conflicts with Paul as he had many deviant teachings that contradicted those of Jesus. (Acts 21:22-24, Deuteronomy 18:20, Ezekiel 13:8-9)

Although Jesus said that he was only sent to the 12 Tribes of Israel (Matthew 15:24, Matthew 10:5-6), Paul proceeded with his evangelistic mission to convert the gentiles.

In other words, Paul went against the instruction of Jesus, yet people believed him anyway.

 

Paul was someone who had a good relationship with the Roman Empire and zealously persecuted the early followers of Jesus and violently tried to destroy the newly forming Christian Church.

What would the best way to destroy a religion? Mislead the believers, of course!

 

Although Judas betrayed Jesus (just as Peter denied Jesus thrice), Jesus did not reject him. In fact, Judas is crucial to Christianity, because if not for his betrayal, Jesus would have been called a liar and a fraud.

​

In many occasions, Jesus mentioned of 'the Twelve', and Jesus himself was one of the Twelve. Even after Judas' death, Matthias was chosen to be the successor … Not Paul !!

​

If God had chosen Paul as one of the Apostles, wouldn't the Holy Spirit inform the original Apostles of the new recruit and arrange for a meet-up?

 

Now, let's say in modern times, someone tells you that God has appeared to him through a vision, 

and has given him new instructions that contradict the basic teachings. Would you believe him? Of course not !

So, why would you believe in Paul ?

 

The fact is that the "New Testament" is made up of mainly writings by Paul, and those books that supported his teachings.
Ever wondered what happened to the rest of the gospels ? And who do you think approved the canonization of the Bible ?

​​

​

CREDIBILITY OF THE BIBLE

If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, why are there so many different accounts on the life of Jesus required ?
The Bible was full of scriptural discrepancies, and even inconsistencies between the Gospels themselves.

​

Moreover, the so-called "canonized" Bible was cherry-picked by the Roman Catholic Church, and compiled centuries after the alledged death of Jesus.

There has been many gospels written, but only few were selected and canonized by the Roman Church. What's more, the gospels were written decades and even centuries after the Crucifixion, and even the authenticity of author of the gospels are in doubt.

 

Why were so many gospels omitted? What has been added in? How credible is the Bible after being edited and rearranged by the hands of a few men?

Isn't it ironic that the Bible was compiled by the people who killed Jesus?

The core of the Christian teachings are based on the writings of Paul, someone who had not even met Jesus in person. In fact, the New Testament-based religion should be called Paulism, and not Christianity ! The words of Paul had more power than the words of Jesus himself !
 

​Another interesting thing is that the church seldom encourage believers, especially new converts, to read the Old Testament. Some are even discouraged to read the Old Testament, claiming that those words of God are obsolete.

​

Some just quote a few 'selected' verses without even understanding the context. Why is this so? Because the Old Testament tells us the history of God, and of His true nature. The content of the Old Testament is so terrible, it has to be censored and rated R21 if everything mentioned is to be made into a movie.

 

Simply, the Bible was edited and manipulated into making people being overcome by their own passion that it disables their ability to think clearly.

If you read the Bible like a storybook, most probably you would not find any problems. However, if you study it with a critical mind, you will find that many problems will start to emerge.

 

It would be hard to imagine you reading every passage of the Bible to your (young) children. Its contents would probably shock them.

And that's what it is supposed to do: Using fear/guilt/greed/self-righteousness to make you believe in BLIND FAITH.

You are NOT allowed to doubt/question/ challenge theofficial narrative !!!

​

Try to recall what made you become a Christian.

 

 

Here are some of the discrepancies in the New Testament. (We have not even started mentioning those in the Old Testament):

Mark 15:21-22 / Luke 23:26 / Matthew 27:32 / John 19:17

Matthew 27:33-34 / Mark 15:23 / John 19:28-30 / Mark 15:36 / Matthew 27:47-49

Mark 15:25 / John 19:14-16

Matthew 24:44 / Mark 15:32 / Luke 23:39-40

John 19:25 / Luke 23:49 / Mark 15:40-41 / Matthew 27:55-56

Matthew 27:46-52 / Mark 15:34-38 / Luke 23:45-46

Matthew 27:59-60 / Mark 15:45-46 / Luke 23:53 / John 19:38-42

Matthew 27:61 / Mark 15:47 / Luke 23:55

Matthew 28:1 / Mark 16:1-2 / Luke 24:1 / John 20:1

​

​

​