Why Was Paul More Successful Than Jesus ?

[ABenShema]

Jesus only preached to the Jews - most of whom rejected him. Paul preached to the Gentiles - and they accepted him by the thousands. What is so hard about this? Jesus specifically said he (personally) was only for the Jew. God intervened in Paul's vision to open up the Gospel for the Gentiles.

Jesus chose 12 Apostles to help him. How is it we hear practically nothing (so very little) about them after he died. What did these twelve do - nothing? And why did Jesus not choose Paul before he died. Why should he choose someone to be His main man after Paul had had so many disciples captured and put to death (notably Steven).
You obviously have not read this (CLICK HERE)!

PLU

 

[hogndog]

 

[packermann]

Genuine Gnosis and Gnosticism never died, it has always been practiced quietly by the 'chosen few' in every part of the world ~ the genuine Mystics/Gnostics, the true lovers of God ~ even though evil religionists have always persecuted them and tried to wipe out the Truth. The Truth will never die, no matter what the religionists do.

If you are a Catholic, what do you feel about your loving church persecuting, torturing, and burning so many people throughout history merely because of their beliefs?

PLU

This is overly simplistic view of history.

It is interesting how it is PC not to judge other cultures but its fine to judge Catholics in the Middle Ages. But we should keep in mind that we now live in a democracy and cultures in the past did not.

In our culture, we elect our leaders. Our leaders can justify their rule by appealing to the last election. This keeps those who oppose their rule at bay, at least until the next election, where they could possibly receive enough votes to overthrow the current power peacefully.

But this way of maintaining order is just a couple of hundred years old. Even before the inception of Christianity, emperors appealed to their divinity to maintain their rule over the people. Possibly emperors themselves thought it was silly for anyone to think of them as gods, but they went along with it because it kept order. After all, who would revolt against a god?
When Christianity came, the emperor was threatened by it. If, as Christianity was saying, that the emperor was not god, then why should anyone obey him? Since this threatened his authority, the emperor would persecute them (It is interesting that we have no record of the Gnostics sufferening persecution from the emperor).
But once Christianity became powerful enough, the emperor found a way to use the new religion to his advantage. Instead of declaring himself to be a god, he was now declared by the Church to be the ruler of the people. To the average Catholic in the Middle Ages, Jesus Christ appointed the first pope, Peter, and Peter would appoint his successor, and his successor would appoint the next successor, until we get to the current Pope, who would crown the emperor and kings to be rulers of the people. So to revolt against an emperor or a king would be to ultimately revolt against Jesus Christ. If at any point the chain of authority is broken the who thing falls apart. If Jesus Christ was not God, then the emperor has no justification for his rule over the people. If the Pope was not ordained by Christ, then the Pope's crowning of the emperor is meaningless. And if the emperor is not the justifiable ruler, then who is? Who determines it? How do you determine it? Remember, the idea of electing your leaders was still hundreds of years later. No one even thought of that back then. If the emperor and the kings are not divinely ordained by God to be their rulers, then all you have left is anarchy.
So back then religious belief was wedded to politics. Even in pagan Rome, religious belief was important to maintain social order. Until the modern notion of separation of church and state was developed, religion had poltical implications. For example, after the Reformation, a British Catholic would see Mary as the legitimate queen. A British Protestant would see Elizabeth as the legitmate queen. Mary wanted all of England to be Catholic, and Elizabeth wanted all to be Protestant (even though privately Elizabeth was keeping many Catholic practices). What religion you believed would effect who you would have as your ruler.
Before our modern era, any religious view that opposed the prevalent religious view would bring anarchy. This is why the emperors and the kings violently opposed the Albigensians. It is no different than how we would react if Communists tried to take over our government. Today, we fight wars over poltical ideology apart from religion. We went to Viet Nam to fight Communism. In the Middle Ages, men would join the Crusades to fight the Albigensians, who threatened their religious and political way of life.

 

[hogndog]

Atheist Paranoia Agnostic Paranoia

Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.

 

[Brennin]

They were never in competition; Paul worked for Jesus.

 

[ABenShema]

This is overly simplistic view of history.

It is interesting how it is PC not to judge other cultures but its fine to judge Catholics in the Middle Ages. But we should keep in mind that we now live in a democracy and cultures in the past did not.

In our culture, we elect our leaders. Our leaders can justify their rule by appealing to the last election. This keeps those who oppose their rule at bay, at least until the next election, where they could possibly receive enough votes to overthrow the current power peacefully.

But this way of maintaining order is just a couple of hundred years old. Even before the inception of Christianity, emperors appealed to their divinity to maintain their rule over the people. Possibly emperors themselves thought it was silly for anyone to think of them as gods, but they went along with it because it kept order. After all, who would revolt against a god?
When Christianity came, the emperor was threatened by it. If, as Christianity was saying, that the emperor was not god, then why should anyone obey him? Since this threatened his authority, the emperor would persecute them (It is interesting that we have no record of the Gnostics sufferening persecution from the emperor).
But once Christianity became powerful enough, the emperor found a way to use the new religion to his advantage. Instead of declaring himself to be a god, he was now declared by the Church to be the ruler of the people. To the average Catholic in the Middle Ages, Jesus Christ appointed the first pope, Peter, and Peter would appoint his successor, and his successor would appoint the next successor, until we get to the current Pope, who would crown the emperor and kings to be rulers of the people. So to revolt against an emperor or a king would be to ultimately revolt against Jesus Christ. If at any point the chain of authority is broken the who thing falls apart. If Jesus Christ was not God, then the emperor has no justification for his rule over the people. If the Pope was not ordained by Christ, then the Pope's crowning of the emperor is meaningless. And if the emperor is not the justifiable ruler, then who is? Who determines it? How do you determine it? Remember, the idea of electing your leaders was still hundreds of years later. No one even thought of that back then. If the emperor and the kings are not divinely ordained by God to be their rulers, then all you have left is anarchy.
So back then religious belief was wedded to politics. Even in pagan Rome, religious belief was important to maintain social order. Until the modern notion of separation of church and state was developed, religion had poltical implications. For example, after the Reformation, a British Catholic would see Mary as the legitimate queen. A British Protestant would see Elizabeth as the legitmate queen. Mary wanted all of England to be Catholic, and Elizabeth wanted all to be Protestant (even though privately Elizabeth was keeping many Catholic practices). What religion you believed would effect who you would have as your ruler.
Before our modern era, any religious view that opposed the prevalent religious view would bring anarchy. This is why the emperors and the kings violently opposed the Albigensians. It is no different than how we would react if Communists tried to take over our government. Today, we fight wars over poltical ideology apart from religion. We went to Viet Nam to fight Communism. In the Middle Ages, men would join the Crusades to fight the Albigensians, who threatened their religious and political way of life.

Although there are some things I would not agree with in your post (e.g. Democracy was actually practiced in Greece long before Jesus was alive), I would agree that it was political and worldly issues that were the main reasons why Paul was more successful than Jesus ~ the subject of this thread, by the way!

Thanks for your input.

PLU

 

[hogndog]

Paul the Apostle more popular than Jesus, says it where in the bible.

Although there are some things I would not agree with in your post (e.g. Democracy was actually practiced in Greece long before Jesus was alive), I would agree that it was political and worldly issues that were the main reasons why Paul was more successful than Jesus ~ the subject of this thread, by the way!

Thanks for your input.

PLU

 

[chestertonrules]

The truth of Christianity could not be fully known until after the crucifixion and resurrection.

Paul caught the wave. In addition, he just happened to be the most prolific writer among the early apostles.

We don't really know if he was any more successful than any of the others as far as making converts. After all, he was visiting established churches in many cases.

Established by whom?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Could the reason be that Paul's Gospel taught that all one had to do to obtain Eternal Life and Salvation was merely 'believe' in and trust (i.e. have faith in) Jesus as the Lord, and 'believe' that His death was the final sacrifice which would cleanse all faithful 'believers' forever of all their sins (something which Jesus did not teach).

Certainly a very 'nice' and 'smug' belief system, indeed - no real effort required on the part of the believer! Very suited to those who were too busy to really devote and dedicate themselves to Spirituality.

Somebody's been interpreting Paul through Baptist eyes...

 

[champuru]

jesus only taught in a small area of israel
paul travelled through out the known world
also paul's social status was much more respectable than jesus's.

 

[ABenShema]

Somebody's been interpreting Paul through Baptist eyes...

Yes, and I think that would be the Baptists!

PLU

 

[ABenShema]

jesus only taught in a small area of israel
paul travelled through out the known world
also paul's social status was much more respectable than jesus's.

Surely God could have given Yehoshua and the original Apostles the same benefits and social position that he gave Paul!

 

[hogndog]

Enter in at the Manhole, there is where you'll find the answer you seek. Its on the shelf clear to the back filed under false doctrines

 

[ABenShema]

Enter in at the Manhole, there is where you'll find the answer you seek. Its on the shelf clear to the back filed under false doctrines

Seems you know your way around the gutter very well!

PLU ~ Bob

 

[Thekla]

If you would like to read a detailed critique on Paul (entitled: "Paul ~ False Apostle & First 'Christian'.") CLICK HERE.

PLU

wait ... I thought you said we don't need to read to know the truth

 

[hogndog]

Aye mate, me used to eat from the gutter that was then this is now

Thanks,
hogndog

Seems you know your way around the gutter very well!

PLU ~ Bob

 

[ABenShema]

wait ... I thought you said we don't need to read to know the truth

Quite so. Books provide suggestions ~ pointers, like signposts. But they cannot reveal (SPIRITUAL) Truth (with a higher case "T"). The article about Paul reveals a worldly truth ~ not Spiritual Truth.

Hope you can understand and also comprehend

 

[Thekla]

Quite so. Books provide suggestions ~ pointers, like signposts. But they cannot reveal (SPIRITUAL) Truth (with a higher case "T"). The article about Paul reveals a worldly truth ~ not Spiritual Truth.

Hope you can understand and also comprehend

I thought knowing was more important

 

[BrotherAtArms]

My post may not be as educated as a lot of the others, but here's my opinion.

Jesus came to save the world. He died on the cross and shed all His blood so we could all receive salvation and eternal life. He also stated that no one comes to the Father except through Him(Christ). Jesus didn't say anything that the Father didn't say for Him to say, and I know this is kind of cliche sounding but... it must have been for a reason, God knows best.
Also taking into consideration, the reason Paul "was more accomplished" than Jesus is because He said, "You will do greater things than I".

But if you want to take another perspective on it, consider this... Paul really didn't do anything. Whatever He did was in the name of Jesus, commissioned by Jesus, and for Jesus. It was all about Jesus anyways, Paul wouldn't have done a thing unless Jesus hadn't gotten a hold of him. He only boasted in the Lord, He only claimed strength in the Lord, He basically claimed that he couldn't do a thing without Jesus. I'm sure than anyone saved in Paul's day would not claim to be saved in the name of Paul, but in the name of Jesus.

Jesus made such statements as "Unless you hate your father, mother, brother or sister, you cannot be my followers". Why would He say such things? He also said, "Those who have ears let them hear". Not everyone wanted to really actually follow Him, they just wanted a religion. But Jesus wanted TRUE followers, not just people.
Paul said that he would do anything it took to save people (outside of sinning). To the human eye, it would seem that Paul was doing more... but check this out!

Jesus came to BE the Gospel, Paul was sent to PREACH the Gospel.

 

[cubanito]

Everyone here has missed the obvious, stated clearly in Scripture: except for a chosen few, Jesus Hid the Truth in order that many would NOT be converted while He was on Earth. In the NT Isaiah is quoted that the Messiah would "speak to the people in parables, SO THAT THE TRUTH BE NOT KONW, ELSE THEY WOULD KNOW THE TRUTH AND REPENT."

Yes folks, Jesus deliberately obfuscated His message, and to many He said to keep miracles quiet.

Why would God deliberately confuse and mislead people from the Truth? So that thousands would NOT be convertewd until AFTER the crucufuxion. Imagine the slaughter of mobs