Contact theSOPAbout theSOPSupport theSOPWritersEditorsManaging Editors
theSOP logo
Published:October 7th, 2009 16:24 EST
St. Paul, Prophet or Charlatan? Part II

St. Paul, Prophet or Charlatan? Part II

By Sean Beelzebul

St. Paul, Prophet or Charlatan?              

It has come to my attention that more needs to be written of St. Paul. It seems that currently I have aroused interest in the subject. I will follow up my previous article with this one, because 1) I do not point out this inherent doctrinal weakness in Christianity, to defile Christianity and deny it of any worth. And 2) Because by refuting St. Paul we can get at what the heart of Christianity means. Thus, this article will continue to doubt the veracity and faith of St. Paul, while elucidating what early Christianity could have been were there not a St. Paul.

When regarding St. Paul, Nietzsche is best quoted; "St. Paul with that Rabbinical Impudence which shows itself in all his doings, gave a logical quality to that conception, that indecent conception, in this way: If Christ did rise from the dead then all our faith is in vain! " And at once there sprang from the gospels the most contemptible of al unfulfillable promises, the shameless doctrine of personal immortality.

 . .Paul even preached it as a reward " "(Der Antikrist p. 33) If this is true, then Paul was certainly an agent of chaos, defiling Christianity into a salesman`s pitch for false hopes. According to Nietzsche, Paul capitalized on the idea of resurrection and immortality and defiled Christ`s teachings completely. Unfortunately, this argument of Nietzsche`s does not evaluate an important factor in the discussion. If Jesus did not die on the cross and was not resurrected then what happened?

According to the Gnostics, the Quran and some mystery organizations on this very American soil, Jesus did not die this way.  The Gnostic Books, including the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, intimate that Jesus was a clever master of disguise: For my death which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death "Yes they saw me they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and vinegar; it was not I.

They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. "(The Nag Hammadi Library p. 365) The Bible itself confirms this! 32 As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross. " (Matthew 27:32)

The bible does not specify who really drank the Gall and Vinegar until Luke, when it misinforms us that it was Jesus. So Jesus did not die on the cross, and this is one of the royal secrets of the mystery organizations throughout time? Who will believe this fanatic non-sense?

Well if you the reader were to ask a physicist, what is more probable; a) a crucifixion hoax, where Jesus avoided death by having a man named Simon crucified in his stead? Or b) a real crucifixion and impalement of Jesus, followed by his entombment in a cave covered by a large rock, followed by a bodily resurrection from the dead? Hopefully you know the answer by now.