Why did Paul alter the Bible?
- Mr.POPLv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
Paul is an admitted LIAR.
Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author)
"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly
immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to
excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it
was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])
"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." (All references not listed here, can be
found in Christianity Betrayed)
"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had
to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on
the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially
relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."
Wil Durant (Philosopher)
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of
"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
Walter Kaufmann (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton)
"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."
George Bernard Shaw
"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its
legs again in the name of Jesus."
"The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."
Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar)
"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and
the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian
tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter
opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with
horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the
imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree,
as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in
spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome. Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is
not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale
inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation." (The Mythmaker, p. 139,Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)
Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher)
"If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul." (Paraphrased. Looking for a copy of "Not Paul, but Jesus" in order to retrieve the exact quote.)
Carl Jung (Psychologist)
"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." (U.S. News and World
Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)
Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)
"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."
(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991).Source(s): Muslim
- 1 decade ago
i think you maybe confused. or not being too vague by what you mean.
the Bible wasn't created until hundreds of years after Paul's death. he couldn't have known which books would be included and which books wouldn't be included. even now experts don't know what the rationalization of which books were chosen.
on top of that, Paul only wrote a handful of books within the new testament and none in the old testament. those are the only ones he could have altered. and to be honest, most people don't consider changes a writer makes to his or her own book as alterations.
maybe you could be more specific in what alterations you mean. are you referring to the differences that seem to appear between the four gospels? often times these discrepences can be easily explained by knowing the original context of the story or the history of the writer.
for example: luke is the only gospel that actually claims mary was a virgin. if this was true why wouldn't the other gospels have said it too; they each mention gabriel's visit but not her virginity?
this can easily be explained by knowing that luke was a greek gentil from the ionic coast. his meaning of the word virgin would have been VERY DIFFERENT than from the meaning of the other three gospel writers.
greeks, like many other cultures around the world, considered virginity more spiritually than physically. during certain greek religious festivals, temple priestesses would regularly perform sexual acts with men. yet, the priestesses were still considered virgins after the ceremonies. this is because the greeks believed the gods inhabited the bodies of the participaters during these events and as such it was the gods who were having sex not the priestesses.
in that context, it is easy to see how luke may have believed mary was still spiritually a virgin and that it was GOD inhabiting the body of a man who impregnated her.
i hope this helped.
- ThisIsIt!Lv 71 decade ago
My theory which is not as far-fetched as the written account: First of all, he probably felt guilty about his previous acts of murder and mayhem. Then, while walking to another village he was struck by lightning, had a near death experience during which time he heard the voice of Jesus whom he never met, but heard a lot about. (As you probably know, those that have had NDEs often "see" or hear deceased people talking to them.)
He then changed his entire belief system because Jesus offered forgiveness for sins rather than the "eye for an eye" attitude which he had learned by way of what we call the Old Testament
Either way, he was off the hook for his previous bad deeds.
As we know now, NDE's will sometimes cause the person to make major changes in his/her lives. And that is exactly what happened with Paul. From then on, he wrote copious numbers of letters telling all the other Christian sects what to believe. (Christianity had more separate groups believing different ideas as there are denominations today.)
Some did not conform to his thinking, however. They became the Orthodox, the Gnostics, Ebionites, Philbionites and a host of other sects.
So, Paul and many others altered the bible to fit their needs. That is the key point. Did you know that the original Greek translations of the gospels left no record of any resurrection with the expection of John, which was written last about 100 years after the crucifixion.
What to do? Since the other gospels had to reflect the same event, they were all altered, or just tossed out and did not become part of the church canon.
Sounds just like we behave in this day and age. Corruption, conspiracy, and an "I know what's best for everyone" attitude.Source(s): Chiefly among many schollars: Bart Ehrman, PhD, Professor of Religious Studies at the U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, translator of ancient texts, author of numerous books including, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture," and "Misquoting Jesus." Both books were best sellers and continue to be popular.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The Bible has been altered by many people, but not Paul.
Many Christians take Paul's words as doctrine for all time. But if the Bible is studied properly, we must take more than the literal words into account. Such things as the culture of the people, the time of the writing and the history must also be considered. With this in mind, Paul's epistles were written to specific churches with specific problems at a specific time within a specific culture.
For instance, many of Paul's writings are interpreted as misogynistic. However, Paul was telling Christians to obey the temple laws of the time. This is lost on many Christians who take Paul's writings as doctrines for all time. This is wrong; they are historical in nature. It upsets me that some denominations take these epistles and use them as a weapon in order to maintain the superiority and authority of the males over the females within that denomination. Christ would not approve of this.
BTW, I live my life according to the Words of Christ. I read Paul, but Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith. If I see a conflict, I am going with the Words and attitude of Christ.Source(s): Universalist Christian
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Which Paul are you referring to?
If you are referring to the Paul of the Bible then you are nuts man! Where do you come from? Paul's writings were part of the Bible. In 2 Peter 3:16-17 we read this,"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."
So can you show me where he changed the Bible?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Paul, the second most prolific writer of the New Testament, wrote many things through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The usual idea many people have in mind with statements like yours becomes moot when you recognize that Jesus PREDICTED the END of the law. Read Matthew 5:18 VERY CAREFULLY, particularly the last "until..." clause.
Notice here that Jesus DOESN'T say that the law will NEVER pass away, but, he says that IT WILL PASS AWAY once "everything" is completed... Now notice the last statement Jesus made from the cross (John 19:30)... "tetelestai" (meaning "It has been completed") is a Greek perfect tense verb. This perfect tense indicates a COMPLETED action with an ENDURING EFFECT. The enduring effects of the COMPLETION of Jesus' work on the earth are myriad. By finishing EVERYTHING he was sent to do, Jesus paved the way for the law to be set aside. The NEW COVENANT spoken of by Jeremiah so long ago would be put into effect in just a few days (Jeremiah 31). With it, the way people relate to God would be changed forever, no longer based on "law keeping," but on Jesus himself.
- 1 decade ago
He did no such thing. Too much was at stake for him to possibly consider it. And the apostles (Peter, for example) agreed with Paul.
- Dee JLv 51 decade ago
He didn't alter what was already written. He added to the Bible.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Paul did not!!
He was long DEAD when the Romans put the Bible together!!!!
- i sharpenLv 61 decade ago
You'd think that you'd at least try something NEW, and not the same old things that UNBELIEVERS have been saying for over 2000 years.
The Holy Bible is not EVER going away. It's here to stay. :D
2 Timothy 3:16 ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, BUT AS IT ACTUALLY IS, THE WORD OF GOD, which is at work in you who believe.