Chapter 2 : The legitimacy of Paul.

Paul has become for modern-day Christians what the Oral Law was for the Pharisees. Whenever a problem arises, the solution is sought in the epistles attributed to him, almost never in the Gospels. People no longer seek God's will, but Paul's, claiming that it must be the same anyway.

This is not about questioning Paul's legitimacy, but about putting everything in its place, starting with the idolatry that the current church devotes to him. Indeed, for many, Paul is THE perfect figure to be resembled, and Jesus is increasingly disappearing from preaching in favor of Paul. This trend is not new, however, and there was already a pronounced tendency at the dawn of Christianity to elevate Paul well above his place in the church of the time. The first collection of New Testament texts was made by Marcion in the middle of the 2nd century AD and it contained only writings by Paul and Luke (a disciple of Paul). When additions were made, several disputes arose, and texts as profound as the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, or even the Apocalypse according to John (among others) were seriously debated before finally being accepted. No writing of Paul seems to have raised any lasting disputes to this day (since then, several voices have been raised to point out the many inconsistencies).

So concerning Paul's legitimacy, it goes without saying that he had chosen to serve God, nothing to say on that side, but it would be good however to realize his imperfection and his disobedience, revealed in the book of Acts and which will be the subject of several points to follow. I am referring here among other things to the passage where it is specified that the brothers, pushed by the Spirit, tried to convince Paul not to go to Jerusalem, he decided however to do as he pleased, also, the Lord sent Agabus to him to reveal to him the consequence of his disobedience. The punishment was simple, God warned him that he would be put in chains, which will indeed happen. We will also note that he will be imprisoned for two years and no conversion will be cited during this entire period of time. On the other hand, while he finally obeys God by leaving for Rome, the conversions start again from the most beautiful (Acts 21 and following).

In any case, if it seems obvious that Paul was fallible, which a good number of "believers" deny (if not in words, then in thoughts), the fact remains that the writings attributed to him contain troubling points which show an opposition either between themselves or with the rest of the word of God.

There is no doubt that the epistles attributed to Paul highlight some very interesting things. Let us not forget that the best way to spread error is to mix it with a small dose of truth. However, what is much more dubious is the place given to it in the Word of God.

What must be questioned is the legitimacy of the presence of the epistles attributed to him in the Word of God. Indeed, it is not because something is true that it must be in the Word of God, but the opposite: it is because it is in the Word of God that it is true. However, in the case of the epistles attributed to Paul, it seems obvious that a certain haste was involved a few hundred years ago and that the skimming was done in an inadequate sieve.

In the rest of these videos we will look at many examples that support what I am saying, and I will base myself only on the Word alone, relying on the fourth rule for determining what is apocryphal, which is contradiction. Thus, it is not a question of looking in any literature whatsoever for an argument opposed to an assertion made in the epistles attributed to Paul. The degree of truth of the Word of God being necessarily superior to any other writing, it is not possible to base oneself on another writing to affirm that this or that passage of the Word is false. Based on this, the only text that can help us in the revelation of what I have to say is the Word itself.

I have always wondered about a verse in Mark 13, the one where Jesus says "I have foretold you all things". This question is simple. What is the validity and legitimacy of a revelation after Jesus' life on Earth? Indeed, if he told us everything in advance, then nothing new can be given. Of course, when it is written that the Spirit will lead us into all truth (John 16.13), it is not referring to a new truth, but to the total understanding of the Word of God, which is fundamentally different. The same is true of the situation of the disciples to whom Jesus had clearly announced his crucifixion but who had to wait to be led into the truth because the time for understanding had not yet arrived.

Also, what is said after the time of the presence of the Lord Jesus on earth can only be an explanation of what he had announced and not an addition otherwise he would be a liar since he would have falsely claimed to have announced everything in advance.

This is why revelations transmitted later by those close to Jesus cannot be viewed from the same perspective. These may be revelations made by Jesus during his time among us. Any new thing announced by people who did not know him is therefore suspect because of the principle of prior announcement by Jesus during his physical presence.

On the other hand, this statement in Mark 13 is also reassuring, because it presupposes that whatever may have been said after him, we must necessarily be able to find traces of it before his stay among us, or possibly during.

So now I'm going to focus on showing the various passages in Paul's epistles that are not confusing, but that are clearly new concepts, and they are generally new because they are in direct opposition to other concepts in the Word. In some cases, Paul is contradicting himself, and this will obviously also be the subject of videos that follow.

Let us recall before going any further that I will endeavor in these videos to show that the writings attributed to Paul have no place in the Word of God while not calling into question the character himself. Human, he is necessarily fallible, which should not be the case for the Word of God which, for values, must have universality and timelessness. More simply, the Word of God must be true regardless of places and times. Jesus Christ being "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13.8), and also being the Word made flesh (John 1.1-4), he cannot have inspired a text of the Bible which is not in agreement with the others. If such a case arises, as it did in the past with the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the birth of the Protestant Church in the time of Martin Luther, then it is appropriate to look at the texts closely and make a decision, staying away from any committed and overly passionate speeches in order to keep a cool head and calmly analyze what should be done.

That's what I'll do here.