Note, the following article is one chapter of the book: The Theology Of Jubilee Economics, and is copyright protected. Single copies for one person's personal use is permitted. All other copying without prior approval is expressly forbidden.
PAUL VERSUS JESUS AND THE APOSTLES
But in Paul's quite different own version of his story, (Gal.2:-13-20), after his supposed burning-bush-like-experience, Paul goes not to Jerusalem but immediately to Arabia! Why Arabia? We don't know if there is a connection, but Paul was very upper class, and Herod the Great had become powerful through heading an alliance of Idumean and Arabian armies which became useful to Rome. So there should have been well to do people there well connected with upper class Jerusalem society. He wouldn't have stayed in the open. It is nearly impossible for even the most experienced outdoorsmen to go into a wilderness area and just remain undiscovered. Every place there is water and food already has people claiming that place. Paul, never an outdoorsman, went to see someone he doesn't want to tell us about! If his Damascus encounter was genuine, then we would be most interested to know the immediate follow-up. But Paul's own version tells us nothing, and since the Acts version is so different, it must be an unacceptable cover-up story put out for public consumption. But Paul's version also not only obviously omits an important part but puts a lot better face on the rest than it deserves. Neither account, Galatians or Acts is acceptably truthful.
Next, we find Paul back at Damascus again, not immediately popular and instantly endowed with sensational and infallible new last-word doctrine. Only after three years, Paul himself tells us (not immediately as in Acts), does he go up to Jerusalem. In all that time, the apostles have not sought him out, nor even sent a delegation! So....if the mountain won't come to Paul, Paul must go to the mountain. In Galatians, Paul doesn't get to see all the apostles, as Acts would have us think, but only Peter and James the Just, who both Acts and Galatians now designate as an apostle. Evidently, Paul doesn't make any big hit with them. If he had gotten any kind of a welcome, you can be certain the ever boastful Paul would, in Galatians, be playing it to the hilt and magnifying every detail. The apostles would be sure to notice the type of visitation Paul claims to have had is very different indeed from the encounters all other witnesses to the Resurrection had described. (Compare Jn.20-:26-28). Neither is there any indication the apostles have even the least enthusiasm for any doctrinal disclosures Paul can offer. If there had been, Paul would let us know by sounding off, not a little but a lot that he had won a point. Instead, it's more like he's tolerated, but whatever he has to offer gets a total rejection or at least silent treatment. More likely, a dispute is already in the making, with the apostles sternly rejecting what Paul the great Pharisee stands for. If Paul was intended by a resurrected Christ to replace the apostles, or become head apostle, why weren't the original apostles alerted to this by Jesus himself?
Fourteen years later the quarrel is still going on (Gal.2:1). It has to be that Paul knew very well indeed what the complaint of the apostles against Paul's doctrine was about, see the epistle of James the Just. But lawyer Paul is never able to give an honest hint of what the difference is really about! He doesn't dare! He doesn't have an answer any more than any of the other many Pharisees with whom Jesus sparred. Not any time in his lifetime can he come up with an answer! Lawyer-like, he tries to switch the subject to relatively minor legalisms about diet and circumcision--things Jesus never made big issues. The real apostles knew of Paul's claim of a burning-bush like experience but they were not accepting Paul as a new Moses--not fourteen years later, not when epistles were written. Jesus was the New-Moses and Incarnation, not Paul the old-Moses-like Pharisee!
II Peter 3:15-17 is often quoted in Paul's defense by uninformed people. Here's why that won't work: At the same time that II Peter was included in the New Testament, the same council that included it, acknowledged at that time that II Peter was not genuine, that is, it was written by someone other than Apostle Peter. It was included in the canon not because it was thought to be by Peter but because it seemed useful to many. (Eusebius III). That II Peter has to mention whether Paul's writings should be accepted, tips us off that already in II Peter's own time many people seriously disliked Paul's notions. They were wise to Paul even if II Peter wasn't. But we have very good reasons to think II Peter did in fact know about Paul's defects and that is the very reason II Peter is dishonestly trying to put over his trick on us: letting on that he is Apostle Peter, when he isn't and trying to sell something as though coming from the real Peter when in fact the real Peter would never say any such a thing. And, if you look, it would indeed seem that almost the whole of what II Peter writes is without substance, a smokescreen to make him sound like the real Peter without having said anything of consequence, (But he fails in this, more in a minute). But that the whole of II Peter's real message is the last few verses in which he urges to accept Paul's concepts-- something we cannot believe the real Apostle Peter would ever say, since nowhere else or at any other time did Apostle Peter show any such inclination! What's going on? Isn't it likely that representatives from the real apostles have spoken to II Peter's flock and that flock has found out about Paul and maybe about II Peter too...and the ones II Peter calls false prophets are the ones who've exposed II Peter and Paul to be the real false prophets! And the reason II Peter stoops to such a sneaky trick is because there is nothing that II Peter or Paul could say that would make an honest defense! The only chance they have is this deception! II Peter has a lot of generalities to say about false prophets, but unlike Apostle Peter tangling with Simon Magus, (see Acts 8:9-23) II Peter never identifies any specific persons or doctrines! He doesn't dare get specific! It worked. Nearly 100% of the churchmen still buy his con-job at face value. His letter should not be in the New Testament. It belongs in the Pseudopigrapha. Language scholars should analyse it to see if they can tell if it's actually written by Paul. If so, that would tell us a lot about Paul. Or, could II Peter actually be Simon Magus teaming up with Paul in Rome?
Paul and Simon Magus had a lot in common. Both yearned to be called apostle and both were, because of their similar false doctrines, in much trouble from the real apostles. Both their similar traditional atonement systems were very much alike-- relabeled paganism. Both were into hocus-pocus sorcery stuff. Both were crowd swaying publicity masters. Both were extremely subtle with doctrines, using tricky reverse definations. Both were establishing new religious denominations, much alike, on the remains of crumbling paganism. Could it be that when Paul was in big trouble with the real apostles, especially Peter, that Paul had his pal Simon Magus play the part of Apostle Peter and write the deceitful letter called II Peter, known by Nicene bishops to be phoney? (But themselves also sold on Paul in the same way II Peter is!) Both Simon Magus and Paul had cause to hate and fear Apostle Peter who had exposed them both. It's well known that Simon Magus would like nothing better than to be called "apostle Peter". He would hardly object to writing the thing called II Peter! In his secret heart, would Paul really object-- especially if II Peter succeeds in deceiving many? We see in Paul's epistle Galatians, how Paul like a slick lawyer, avoids telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Might it even be his idea to initiate the fraud? Could the "Peter" the church of Rome claims as founder actually be Simon Magus? All Roman Church ceremonies, rituals, doctrines, holidays, vestments, and organization are patterned after ancient paganism! Especially valuable in explaining all this is: Evangelist Ralph Woodrow: Babylon Mystery Religion, P.O. Box 124, Riverside, CA 92502. Paul's "faith" doctrine is a variety of antinomian Gnostic mysticism, since his "faith" and "gnosis" are not concerned about deeds and thus are at the farthest extreme from the teaching of Jesus: "by their fruits shall ye know them". Magus, the VooDoo sorcerer, wouldn't object to Paul's "faith" doctine, so basicly like his sacrifice atonement system. But most importantly of all: both Paul and Magus were paramount pseudo-pentecostalists (Acts 8:18-23). Paul's use of alleged burning-bush like experience is exactly like the magic tricks Magus is up to in Acts 8:18. There is no reason to think Paul and Simon Magus couldn't have been the best of buddies! Unlike Peter, while Paul is at Rome at the same time as Magus, he never tangles with Magus or even mentions him! But, at all other recorded times, Paul never clicked with the real Peter. Then, why would he click with Peter in the known to be fraudulent writing, II Peter? It doesn't add up right at all! II Peter stinks!
But even if II Peter is genuine, how could it possibly be used to support Paul? Since, Paul has declared his no-confidence in the authority or sound judgement of the apostles, especially Peter! (Gal.1:2, 2:5 & 6) So how can authorities Paul doesn't accept be used to vindicate Paul? No logic! So people who quote II Peter to support Paul do not make their case! And isn't it probable, that the reason Paul in Galatians, is rejecting the opinions and advice of the genuine apostles, is that something like what happened to II Peter is also happening to Paul! Almost certainly the very reason Paul is writing the epistle to Galatians with such obvious alarm is because word from the apostles has reached the Galatian church, showing them what's wrong with Paul's message. Apostles, Paul says, had assented to Paul's going to the Gentiles. Apostles also couldn't prevent Paul's going, though the evidence of Galatians and Corinthians is apostles were sending representatives to Paul's churches with the purpose of exposing Paul, which fact contradicts Paul and Luke's assertion the Jerusalem council had authorized Paul! But apostles had not assented to Paul adopting a doctrine of irresponsibility. They should have objected even more to his adoption of pagan-like atonement theory. But Paul can't make an honest defense. Lawyer-like, Paul tries to dodge the main issue. And since Constantine's eventual state policy was expressly to favor Paul over the apostles, (and in Constantine's New Testament we almost don't get the view of the real apostles at all) isn't it absurd for admirers of Paul to infer that Jesus goofed all twelve times in picking apostles--that the twelve who knew Jesus and heard his talks, and shared the evangelistic campaign--that these twelve got it all wrong. And the Paul the Great Pharisee, who never heard Jesus, is the one who got it right and is the head apostle and only proper apostle! And that after reading Matt.5:20, we're supposed to think the risen Jesus rejects the wisdom of the Incarnation Jesus and now wants the Great Pharisee to be a new Moses and give us the Word the historical Jesus couldn't get right. If we are to have relabled paganism as the WORD, then there was no reason for the Incarnation, since we already had had that "word" for thousands of years. (and the Jewish "law" too). For churchmen to accept such thinking is to in effect make Paul, not Jesus, the WORD. No more faulty notion could be imagined. Fortunately, we don't have to choose between Paul versus Jesus on the basis of proof texts (such as II Peter) or a battle of who has the most authority. It's simple to just look and see if Paul's doctrine is the same as that of Jesus or is really wholesome. About which we'll say more shortly.
Paul claimed ordination not from the genuine apostles who were nearby and could have commissioned him if they had considered him worthy. Instead, Paul offers as credentials, his appointment by Manaen (Acts 13:1) who was foster-brother to Herod (that fox) Antipas, before whom Jesus stood trial and to whom Jesus would not even speak. In neither version of his conversion, Acts vs. Galatians, does Paul immedately, Moses-like, begin speaking infallible last-word dogmas. Gal.1:12 indicates he didn't take his doctrines from the apostles or other disciples. And we never find him preaching the parables of Jesus. Paul says it's a revelation but doesn't explain this. (Why the need for more revelation after we had just had the WORD? And the apostles who recognized Jesus as the Word, why don't they see it in Paul's ventings? What kind of Word made flesh was it that immediately had to be supplimented, amended, even reversed? Instead, Paul's theology (though he says he got it from no man) is easily seen to be a blend of Pharisee legalism, relabled pagan mystery religion, with some Gnostic mysticism thrown in. Paul's theology is fundamentally different from the Kingdom-building gospel of Jesus. With all Paul's schooling and the life-long pointed opposition of the real apostles, it's hard to see how Paul didn't know any better! It had to be a deliberate variance from the gospel of the real Jesus.
As a star pupil of the head Pharisee Gamaliel (Acts:5:34), Paul may have entertained ambitions of becoming Gamaliel's successor and thus making himself, Paul, the world's head Pharisee. After his "conversion"--which did not involve accepting the teachings of Jesus--that avenue would be closed to Paul, so he just started his own school of thought, of which school he was head. (Was he trying to be another Moses and feign indisputable authority for his rulings? It works fine to this day with the VooDoo loving (Fundamentalist) masses who dislike doing their own thinking). It never fooled James the Just (who, for a time was backed by apostles John and Peter). To Paul's legalism about "saved by faith" (Gal.3, Heb.11) James sternly replies, "the demons believe and tremble" (but obviously aren't Christian) and to "be doers of the word, not hearers (or believers) only". It's not really just by "faith"--but how faithful are we, how trustworthy. And, unlike Jesus, whose new (and still being created) piece of cloth is not to be added to the old garmet, Paul despite what he says, seems bent on rallying Judaism to his Pharisaic school. He never gives up on that which Jesus gave up on to start with. Our Theology-Of- Ethics contention is that Paul did in fact become the greatest of all (Anti-Christ) Pharisees and remains so today. And whether Paul intended it or not, Paul's theology has been and remains Christianity's greatest enemy, having done us more harm than all other opponents combined, ancient and modern.
Most churchmen credit Paul with being the one who brought Gentiles into the church (although Peter was already doing it). Not really. It's Paul's pagan-like doctrine that to the present day is keeping them out!
The reason to think of Paul as the Great Pharisee is not that he stayed loyal to the Talmud* (which he never repudiated or disassociates himself from), but because of his excessive legalism. And legalism was what was wrong with the Pharisees. Do not be tricked by his chatter about how he's free from the law. He exchanges the legalisms about diet and circumcision for far, far more serious code. And a big part of problem with Paul's legalistic system is not that he's entirely wrong all the time.