Paul was at odds with the real apostles

This was brought up in another post. Since is was off topic I am starting this thread to find out more of this view. How exactly was Paul at odds?

Paul was at odds with the real apostles. Galatians Chapters 1 & 2 are bold examples of Paul’s (hidden) anti-Torah view that was in conflict with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Paul pooh-poohed the significance of the real apostles, but…(just in case the Galatians cared) he assured them his doctrine had the real apostles’ support.
Paul came to words with Peter once Peter found out what Paul was teaching, Galatians 2:11. Paul mocked James, Peter (Cephas), and John. He scolded Barnabas and rebuked Peter, Galatians 2:9, 11-14. In true contradictory style, he portrayed Peter as a hypocrite to his Galatian audience, and then boasted of himself, displaying a worse behavior to the Corinthians, saying, “I become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some”, I Corinthians 9:19-22. Note that Paul declares he is the one who gains the more, and that he is the one who is saving mankind not the man Jesus gave his church to, Peter…
Paul was under fire at the council in Jerusalem (he kept silent his anti-Torah viewpoint). James decreed that the Gentiles must abstain from four points of the law. This is mentioned twice in the same chapter, Acts 15:20, 29. Paul then wrote to the Galatian church and told them that they (the apostles) desired “only they would that we should remember the poor”, Galatians 2:10. This is not what James said, which is confirmed by Acts 15:20, 29. Judge Paul for yourself, but for me I prefer the words of the Apostle who heard Jesus in the flesh and to whom he gave the future of his Church. " You are Peter (Cephas)," he said, “on this rock I will build my Church.”

Just goes to show that the Church is one body with many parts (quoting Paul… Sorry!) that work in different ways, sometimes at odds, but toward the same goal, that the whole body may thrive and grow. For that, let us give praise and thanks to God!

That’s a cut and paste job from one of the many websites run by Sherry Shriner.

Sherry Shriner is a self-proclaimed prophet and descendent of King David, dedicated to proving, among other things, the Biblical basis for imminent alien abductions and that Hitler was some kind of corrupt Jew who implemented the holocaust in order to establish the modern state of Israel to dominate the true Jews.

The Internet doesn’t get much more entertaining than this.


This is from the Theology Dept of the University of Oxford, England by formidable theological scholars of international repute
"The view that Paul rather than Jesus was the founder of Christianity as a new religion, separate from Judaism, is based on the contrast between Jesus’ preaching of the Kingdom with Paul’s religion of redemption in which Christ’s death and resurrection are the centrepieces of a new mystery cult. Baptism is the means of entry, and the defilement of human sin is removed as the initiate enters into communion with Christ’s act of salvation. The message of Jesus about the Father has been transformed into a religion appropriate for the Graeco‐Roman world in which the heavenly Father plays only a minor role, and the Judaism of Jesus is stripped in Paul’s religion of its Jewish basis of the Torah. "
Ok so I cut it and pasted it from the University Website. So what. It gives a generally accepted view among scholars here (even some Catholic ones).

I don’t care if cut and past sometimes that better expresses what we are trying to say than what you can say.

I am confused to what exactly you believe Jesus taught that Paul does not?


Peccavi, on the other thread you repeatedly stated that St. Paul was a false apostle that taught things that ran counter to St. Peter and to Jesus and that his epistles are not canonical in your view. And yet nowhere in there did you actually state what St. Paul said that you felt was unorthodox about his teachings.

I’m very interested to hear your views on this.

It’s called plagiarism. It’s unethical and against forum rules. That’s “what”.

I had forgotten her. Thank you for reminding me.

I never did get that orgone blaster.

Good news! You can make your own :smiley:

Ok, umm…who said Paul wasn’t a “real apostle”…? :eek:

Looks better than the tinfoil hats.

Peccavi did, in the other thread referenced in the #1 post on this thread. The OP here started the new topic so that it didn’t derail the other thread topic.

We’re still trying to get Peccavi to explain why he feels that way. He’s tossed out that he feels St. Paul wasn’t a real apostle, and that he was promoting false teachings that went against the teachings of Jesus and the “real” apostles and St. Peter but he hasn’t specified what teachings of St. Paul were in conflict in his opinion. He also indicated that none of the epistles of St. Paul should have been included in the Canon.

I’m hoping for some specific references from Peccavi.

:whacky::ehh: Some people don’t have all of their marbles.

Once I learned that his statement wasn’t his own but copied and paste I went looking for the source which is [The Problem with Paul

by C.M.

It was :hypno:. Since the writer claims that Paul changed his name, it makes me wonder about the academics of “CM” (whoever that is). It is always a bad sign when you can’t check out the credentials of the writer. Paul did not change his name. His Hebrew name was Saul and his Roman name Paul.
The article should be titled The Problem with the straw man Paul:rolleyes:

Name changes were common with the Bible anyway, though.

Simon becomes Peter. Jacob becomes Israel. Abram becomes Abraham. Levi becomes Mathew. So I guess I don’t see how a scholar might accept St. Peter, as an example, but object to St. Paul. At least on that basis.

My primary concern is that Peccavi seems to be using these things as a basis for his decision to leave the Catholic Church. I’d like to hear from him what his personal beliefs are, what his true objections are.

"The view that Paul rather than Jesus was the founder of Christianity as a new religion, separate from Judaism, is based on the contrast between Jesus’ preaching of the Kingdom with Paul’s religion of redemption in which Christ’s death and resurrection are the centrepieces of a new mystery cult.

Hi, I have no idea if this helps, but much of what I’ve read about biblical scholarship indicates two types of reasons behind this argument.

One is basically atheistic, attacking Christianity. F Baur began this argument by finding a ‘Hellenistic’ Paul and a ‘Jewish’ Paul hidden in the bible which he managed to discern after all these centuries because he was a psychic - whoops, I mean a smart skeptic. Skeptics everywhere rejoiced when Baur vented forth.

The other reason is basically Protestant. Bultmann is a good example. Since of course they viewed the Catholic church as the usurper of pure, unalloyed Christianity as practiced in the earliest church, many Protestant scholars of the bible came to agree with the old Baur argument. All that talk of a church, and Peter the rock in Matthew, not to mention the uncomfortable facts of a church found in 1 Clement and the letters of Ignatius, could be tossed aside so they could focus on Paul.

I likely haven’t explained this very well. ’

Anyway, God bless, Annem

When I first read these passages many years ago I thought that Paul was trying to defend himself against the unattributed charge that people didn’t have to listen to Paul because he was not a real apostle.

That would make perfect sense. If for some reason you had a personal beef with Paul it would be easy at that time to draw attention to Paul’s not so Christian past. You might dismiss him in favour of apostles that actually lived with Jesus and who were also walking around and preaching the gospel.

That would be an understandable reaction and charge, especially if you knew people who suffered under Paul. It would be something Paul would need to defend.

I think the fact that Paul mentions Peter is a back-handed recognition of Peter’s authority in the early Church. If Peter didn’t have authority, why bother justifying yourself by using Peter?

Paul did this in several writing passages including by saying that he visited Peter and the apostles and they ‘wished him well’ ‘did not criticise his preaching’ and ‘had nothing to add to his message’.

Also, I think Paul’s different writings on this matter are just enough to justify himself as having authority but carefully stops short of questioning the authority of Peter. That again testifies to the respectful position of Peter in the early church while they were all still breathing and walking around.

Off topic (sorry I couldn’t resist) I think Peter was actually a harmonizer and his ‘gospel’ of Mark tries to harmonise the ‘true’ Jewish apostles’ gospel of Matthew with the gospel of Paul’s travelling companion Luke who also met with the apostles (and Mark) and largely travelled in Gentile lands.

St. Paul likely only saw two of them -Peter and James -if he saw others he kept quiet about it

I never said I was using this as an excuse to leave the Catholic Church

My own beliefs are coloured by

  1. a close reading of the Gospels and Acts where the conflict between Paul and the Apostles is only too clear (Paul was never an Apostle he just adopted the title for himself) and a study of the Epistle of James a too neglected work.
  2. Cardinal Newman’s* Apologia Pro Vita Sua* in which he doubts the Doctrine of Papal Infallibilty
  3. the Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Instead it makes excuses and apportions blame. It has covered up priestly child abuse and past abuses of unmarried mothers and illegitimate children. It has neglected to teach its laity the Gospels in a meaningful way and too often sided with fascists, dictators and Corporations that oppress the poor, the voiceless and stifle dissent.
  4. a growing belief in Liberation Theology and the Radical Jesus
  5. a rejection of Luther and Calvin and justification by faith alone and the notion of earthly rewards for God’s elect !

That would come as quite a shock to Jesus, Peter, and the crew who both accepted and sent Paul out preaching, and called Paul’s writing “scripture.” :hmmm: Anyone who says Paul downplayed the Father doesn’t “get” the whole point of Paul’s writing.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit