Can anyone explain to me what a heretic is?


Let the Salem witch trials begin.. ;)

Easy, just look it up in a dictionary.

Definition heresy [Show phonetics] noun 1 [C or U] (the act of having) an opinion or belief that is the opposite of or against what is the official or popular opinion, or an action which shows that you have no respect for the official opinion: Radical remarks like this amount to heresy for most members of the Republican party. She committed the heresy of playing a Madonna song on a classical music station.
2 [U] a belief which is against the principles of a particular religion: He was burned at the stake in the fifteenth century for heresy.

heretic [Show phonetics] noun [C] a person who is guilty of heresy

heretical [Show phonetics] adjective Her belief that a split would be good for the party was regarded as heretical.
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

Looks like I´m a heretic :(

So, the real question, SouthStar, is are you a heretic? If you're a heretic then not believing what you do pushes us a step closer to legitimacy. :p

SouthStar,

Let the Salem witch trials begin..

You are being sarcastic. I will therefore not respond to your thread question.

SouthStar,



You are being sarcastic. I will therefore not respond to your thread question.

It was just a joke, what's wrong with a little humor? :confused:

So, the real question, SouthStar, is are you a heretic? If you're a heretic then not believing what you do pushes us a step closer to legitimacy. :p

In a world of denominations, factions and individuality.. I suppose we are all heretics..


But since we are talking about religion, the "norm" is dictated by interpretation which automatically makes dissenting viewpoints heresy... Doesn't sound fair ta me..

The word heresy originates in the Greek hairesis, the noun formed from the verb haireomai (to choose). At base, heresy means consciously opting for a set of beliefs, and thus, one can say that a heretic is pro-choice.

Heresy is best defined as a crime of perception. ;)

So, from the greek, heresy means choosing your own religion. To not be a heretic means taking what you get and not trying to pick and choose your beliefs.

This isn't the literal definition, but from a Christian perspective, a heretic is a member of another Christian sect ... thus, to a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church, everybody in Northern Ireland would be a heretic. A heathen, conversely, is someone entirely outside Christianity, say a Hindu or a Taoist.

That makes everyone who claims to believe in the "same thing" a heretic, no?


Tell me invert_next and StarOfEight, are you heathen or heretics? ;)

Well, I would consider myself a heathen. Which means that I don't buy into the christianity crap. But I could be capable of heresy in the proper situations. I have often considered starting a cult for shits and giggles.

Calling Christianity "crap" is considered heretical, I would assume.. Cults also aren't considered too holy in our eyes :cool:


If you ain't Christian cool, then you're a heretical fool. :p

This isn't the literal definition, but from a Christian perspective, a heretic is a member of another Christian sect ... thus, to a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church, everybody in Northern Ireland would be a heretic. A heathen, conversely, is someone entirely outside Christianity, say a Hindu or a Taoist.
*************
M*W: I thought the definition of "heathen" means the same thing as "pagan." "Heretic" also means someone who holds opposing views to Catholicism. Then, there is someone who is an "apostate." From memory of my xian days, I recall that an "apostate" defies the teachings of the Catholic church. But what about the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics? That's heresy.

This isn't the literal definition, but from a Christian perspective, a heretic is a member of another Christian sect

No, this is not a definition that Protestants nor Catholics use. The Protestant definition of heretical typically means any belief outside of mainstream Christianity such as mormonism, jehovah witnesses, and denominations which deny the Trintiy.


... thus, to a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church, everybody in Northern Ireland would be a heretic.

No, the Orthodox church is schismatic, not heretical. While specific doctrines can be considered heretical, the sin of heresy occurs only if the individual has been baptized along with the other conditions for the sin to be mortal.

A heathen, conversely, is someone entirely outside Christianity, say a Hindu or a Taoist.

Calling Christianity "crap" is considered heretical, I would assume.. Cults also aren't considered too holy in our eyes


If you ain't Christian cool, then you're a heretical fool.

But that's the thing. Is a non-christian capable of being a heretic? Or just a heathen. Seems like this conversation has got us nowhere. Whichever I am it doesn't matter. When the church begins to flex it's muscles once more, I'll end up on the stake just the same.

The question, Southstar, is what are you? I have a strange feeling that you'd end up on the stake as well. Unless of course you're so weak that you'll forgo your current convictions and return to the dogma espoused by whichever church is burning heretics in the area at any given time. Although, at least you're not one of those ancient of days guys. What's up with that anyway? Which cult does it represent?

I think an apostate is someone who not only denies some teachings of the Church but renounces them. A heretic seems to assent to doctrines that contradict to the Church while believing in other doctrines that the Church teaches.

SouthStar,

It was just a joke, what's wrong with a little humor?

If you, as a religious person, wish to be taken seriously, you need to learn that there are things that simply aren't funny. There are things that are not to be joked about.
One can joke, of course, but keep in mind that once in the realm of a religion that you want others to respect -- don't be surprised when people react negatively if you joke about things that are fundamental to your belief.

SouthStar,



If you, as a religious person, wish to be taken seriously, you need to learn that there are things that simply aren't funny. There are things that are not to be joked about.
One can joke, of course, but keep in mind that once in the realm of a religion that you want others to respect -- don't be surprised when people react negatively if you joke about things that are fundamental to your belief.


I'm sorry :(

But that's the thing. Is a non-christian capable of being a heretic? Or just a heathen. Seems like this conversation has got us nowhere. Whichever I am it doesn't matter. When the church begins to flex it's muscles once more, I'll end up on the stake just the same.

The question, Southstar, is what are you? I have a strange feeling that you'd end up on the stake as well. Unless of course you're so weak that you'll forgo your current convictions and return to the dogma espoused by whichever church is burning heretics in the area at any given time. Although, at least you're not one of those ancient of days guys. What's up with that anyway? Which cult does it represent?

I doubt I'll end up being complacent. ;)

What are "ancient of days guys"? I dont think I've heard that term before..

I think an apostate is someone who not only denies some teachings of the Church but renounces them. A heretic seems to assent to doctrines that contradict to the Church while believing in other doctrines that the Church teaches.

What do you mean contradict to the Church? Contradict to what the Pope says? Or what the majority says?

I doubt I'll end up being complacent.

What are "ancient of days guys"? I dont think I've heard that term before..

So, are you saying you are a heretic? It's a tough question to ask yourself, isn't it?

If you haven't seen All Praise the Ancient of Days tacked on to some of the posts around here, I wonder just how much of the posts you read. I've never heard the phrase until coming to this website. It comes from christians, so it's not a wiccan thing. There's at least three or four people who post it with everything they say.

Easy, just look it up in a dictionary.

Definition heresy [Show phonetics] noun 1 [C or U] (the act of having) an opinion or belief that is the opposite of or against what is the official or popular opinion, or an action which shows that you have no respect for the official opinion: Radical remarks like this amount to heresy for most members of the Republican party. She committed the heresy of playing a Madonna song on a classical music station.
2 [U] a belief which is against the principles of a particular religion: He was burned at the stake in the fifteenth century for heresy.

heretic [Show phonetics] noun [C] a person who is guilty of heresy

heretical [Show phonetics] adjective Her belief that a split would be good for the party was regarded as heretical.
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
Looks like I´m a heretic :(

From that definition i am also a heretic.
opinion or belief that is the opposite of or against what is the official or popular opinion.
Official or popular yep i am a heritic.


My definition of Heritic:
Someone who is promoting or teaching things about God that are against the will of God. Someone bearing false witness to God.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I don´t know, wouldn´t that border on blasphemy?

The Ancient Of Days is refered to in the Book of Daniel chapter 7. The Ancient Of Days is someone.

Daniel 7
9 "I watched till thrones were put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;
10A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was seated,
And the books were opened.


And again

13"I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
14Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.

And again

19"Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet; 20and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows.
21"I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, 22until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.
23"Thus he said:


"The fourth beast shall be
A fourth kingdom on earth,
Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,
And shall devour the whole earth,
Trample it and break it in pieces.
24The ten horns are ten kings
Who shall arise from this kingdom.
And another shall rise after them;
He shall be different from the first ones,
And shall subdue three kings.
25He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.
Then the saints shall be given into his hand
For a time and times and half a time.


26"But the court shall be seated,
And they shall take away his dominion,
To consume and destroy it forever.
27Then the kingdom and dominion,
And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven,
Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High.
His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.'


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

What do you mean contradict to the Church? Contradict to what the Pope says? Or what the majority says?

Loosely speaking, teaching something that contradicts the teachings of the Church. The Pope can also proclaim infalliable teachings ex-cathedra, and someone who rejects these teachings while being a Catholic would have committed heresy.

The term "ancient of days" comes from the book of Daniel. It's a praise name for the Father.

Galatians 5

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
19Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[3] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21envy, murders,[4] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.


Well okinrus, there was no Catholic Church back in that time. What could he have possibly meant by "dissension" and "heresies"?

Since most of us on this forum, if not all, go against popular belief in some way or the other, that makes us 'guilty', doesn't it?

@invert_nexus

Yes, I have noticed. I didn't make the connection at first.. As for me being a heretic, I will leave it to you guys to interpret the text and tell me what you think.

Well okinrus, there was no Catholic Church back in that time.

Yes, Paul was a member of the Catholic Church. The word "catholic" was first used in writing for the name for the Church by Ignatius around 100AD.


What could he have possibly meant by "dissension" and "heresies"?

My translation says "Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions,...."


Since most of us on this forum, if not all, go against popular belief in some way or the other, that makes us 'guilty', doesn't it?

Most of this forum have not been baptized into the Catholic church and at one time assented to the believe in Catholic doctrine. You might be a heretic to popular society but that doesn't make you guilty of heresy.

Factions may very well be interpreted as 'denominations', don't you think?

--
Well now that I know Paul was a member of the Catholic Church, does that mean 'non-Catholic' Christians are heretics since there would have been (some) bias involved?

And in regards to your last statement: If not, what does make one "guilty of heresy".

Factions may very well be interpreted as 'denominations', don't you think?

Strictly speaking, "yes."


Well now that I know Paul was a member of the Catholic Church, does that mean 'non-Catholic' Christians are heretics since there would have been (some) bias involved?

No, they are not heretics unless if they used to be Catholic, and even then I believe the Church reserves the use of heretic, preferring instead separated brethen. This is mainly because the word heretic usually presumes mortal sin, and to be guilty of the mortal sin of heresy the heretic must know what he or she is doing is mortally wrong. Nevertheless, specific doctrines espoused by some of these denominations can be labeled heretical.


And in regards to your last statement: If not, what does make one "guilty of heresy".

This is the Catechism's definition.
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11
http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/heresy.htm

"denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith"

What I'm saying is what "truths" are these? Whatever they are they must be so blatant that differing interpretation would be "obstinate" and there aren't too many of those in the Bible that I can think of.

Does the Church give any examples or does it remain vague on that aspect?

P.S. Thanx for the information. I learned something new. :)

What I'm saying is what "truths" are these?

Usually doctines on the Trinity, Mary, and justification.


Whatever they are they must be so blatant that differing interpretation would be "obstinate"

I think obstinance means that someone persists in wrong doctrine despite it being shown wrong to them.


and there aren't too many of those in the Bible that I can think of.

There are certain believes such as the belief that Jesus was not resurrected in the flesh, not born in the flesh, was not crucified, etc. that heretics have believed in. Some heretics denied that certain books of the Bible were canonical.


Does the Church give any examples or does it remain vague on that aspect?

There are some people such as Luther who were tried for heresy and found guilty.

Usually doctines on the Trinity, Mary, and justification.

Well Protestants don't 'deal' very well with Mary (in the Catholic sense) if you know what I mean.. surely, that constitues heresy. As for the Trinity, the Bible does not give any dissertations on the Triune Being and I think a lot of what is taught is based on inference. Remember, people selling indulgences weren't burnt at the stake for heresy.

I think obstinance means that someone persists in wrong doctrine despite it being shown wrong to them.

Are Protestants consequently heretics, or are Catholics? It seems to be either one or the other due to the "schism" that took place in the Church.


There are certain believes such as the belief that Jesus was not resurrected in the flesh, not born in the flesh, was not crucified, etc. that heretics have believed in. Some heretics denied that certain books of the Bible were canonical.There are some people such as Luther who were tried for heresy and found guilty.

Well, was Luther really a heretic?

Are Protestants consequently heretics, or are Catholics? It seems to be either one or the other due to the "schism" that took place in the Church.

The Protestant separation was not a schism because Protestants teach different doctrines than Catholics. The doctrines that are different from the Church, such as salvation by faith alone, are heretical but this doesn't mean all Protestants are heretics.


Well, was Luther really a heretic?

Most likely "yes," but I don't think Martin Luther was not in right mind.

The Protestant separation was not a schism because Protestants teach different doctrines than Catholics. The doctrines that are different from the Church, such as salvation by faith alone, are heretical but this doesn't mean all Protestants are heretics.

The New Testament plainly points out that salvation by faith is the ONLY way. How is this at all heresy? This is a clear case where the 'Church' is being hypocritical and itself being "obstinate" to the truth being presented.


Most likely "yes," but I don't think Martin Luther was not in right mind.

Could you explain this, I don't understand.

The New Testament plainly points out that salvation by faith is the ONLY way.

Salvation by faith and salvation by faith alone are two different things.


How is this at all heresy? This is a clear case where the 'Church' is being hypocritical and itself being "obstinate" to the truth being presented.

Isn't faith without works dead?

Perhaps I misunderstood you.


In the application that "you shall know them by their fruit", faith with works is applicable. If I died a microsecond after accepting Christ, do you attempt to say my salvation is null because of the absence of works?

Remember:

We do NOT recieve the Spirit by the works of the law, but by the hearing of faith ALONE.

This is a question I hope you will answer for me:

Galatians 3
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

In the application that "you shall know them by their fruit", faith with works is applicable. If I died a microsecond after accepting Christ, do you attempt to say my salvationis null because of the absence of works?

No, I think of works as allowing God to work within us. It's necessary for the living to do God's work because that is God's will. Someone who truly loves God will do God's will.


We do NOT recieve the Spirit by the works of the law, but by the hearing of faith ALONE.

Paul speaks of someone "shipwrecking" their faith. This cannot be so unless if their faith was dependent on doing God's will after they received their faith. Revelation further speaks of those who were lukewarm, and Jesus said that since they were neither hot nor cold he would spit them out. This is only so because someone who is within Christ must do as Christ says.

Yes, Paul was a member of the Catholic Church. The word "catholic" was first used in writing for the name for the Church by Ignatius around 100AD.[QUOTE]
*************
M*W: Although the word "catholic" was used by Ignatius around 110 CE, the context of the word "catholic" used at that time comes into question. The word "catholic" means "one holy apostolic (teaching) body." Paul, on the other hand, lived from ~5 CE-67 CE, which is prior to Ignatius' writing. Therefore, since Paul was beheaded long before this time, Paul was not a "catholic."
*************
A feast of the universal Church commorating the downpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, 50 days after the Resurrection of Christ, also proves that Paul was not a true Apostle. Paul fabricated his Apostleship, since he never knew Jesus in person nor was he present for the Crucifixion nor the Resurrection nor the Pentecost. In fact, Paul was quite well-known as a perpetual prevaricator. Paul was not a member of the "catholic" church. He was not an Apostle except in his own mind. He was not there on the day of Pentecost and did not receive the Holy Spirit when the original Apostles were said to have received it. In fact, the church that Paul professed was not even the church of Jesus. The church of Jesus was led by James, Jesus' brother, and it fell in Jerusalem.

I don't believe Paul ever claimed to be an 'Apostle'. EVER. If you would like to show BIBLICAL evidence for ANY of this, go right ahead.

Paul said that he was an apostle(lower case Greek for someone sent by God), to which all Christians proclaim he is.


A feast of the universal Church commorating the downpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, 50 days after the Resurrection of Christ,

40 days, I believe.


In fact, the church that Paul professed was not even the church of Jesus. The church of Jesus was led by James, Jesus' brother, and it fell in Jerusalem.

I thought Jesus was a rabbi? Rabbies don't create their own churches, especially one that would compete with the Jewish temple.

I don't believe Paul ever claimed to be an 'Apostle'. EVER. If you would like to show BIBLICAL evidence for ANY of this, go right ahead.
*************
M*W: "Paul claims his own apostleship."

"Paul was not at all sheepish about calling himself an apostle. In fact, in nine out of thirteen of his books, he introduces himself as an apostle of Yeshua, and in every case he states in one way or another that his apostleship stands by divine sovereign decree."

"Other than the twelve apostles who spent three and a half years with Yeshua, no one other than Paul can be identified as having claimed for themselves the office of apostle of Yeshua. Barnabas was referred to as an apostle along with Paul by Luke in Acts 14:14, but there is no record of Barnabas claiming for himself the title of apostle."

"Here is the question. Should we believe the testimony of any person who makes grandiose claims about themselves when all we have for confirmation of their claim is little more than their word and maybe a statement or two from their best friend? If so, then we should likewise confirm the Jim Jones and David Koreshs that regularly pop up here and there. Unless there is obvious corroborative evidence to support such claims made today and in the past, all of them should be taken with a very large helping of salt. Unlike Paul, a true prophet or apostle does not have to go to such extraordinary lengths to convince the world they are who they say they are. Even Yeshua said that if he alone bore witness of himself, his witness was invalid. John 5:31 And of all the people who shouldn't need to have others testify on their behalf, Yeshua was that person. Yet he had Moses, the prophets, the Psalms, John the Baptist, the Fathers voice from heaven declaring to everyone "this is My beloved Son..." and hundreds of those who witnessed his resurrection just to name a few. Paul had none of these. Though in his conceit he considered himself to be God's gift to the Gentiles and tried to claim a prophecy given to Isaiah for himself as recorded in Acts 13:47 where he says:

"For so the Lord has commanded us: 'I have set you to be a light to the Gentiles that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth."
Paul's apostleship was unrecognized by others.

"Of the 22 times in the "new testament" where Paul is referred to as an apostle, only twice is he referred to as an apostle by someone other than himself. These two instances came from the same person. Not from Yeshua or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion and personal press secretary Luke. Both accounts are found in Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles, (chapter 14:4,14). Here Paul is referred to along with Barnabas as an apostle. By this time in the record, Luke would have been very familiar with Paul calling himself an apostle and was no doubt in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan, and his side kick Luke was his number two fan, leaving no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record as recognizing his apostleship."

Paul, the greatest apostle (according to himself!).

"Paul's view of himself as an apostle didn't seem to stop at just the claim of being apostle. Instead, he tried to communicate to his followers how great an apostle he thought he was. He even had the nerve to challenge the very apostles whom Yeshua had called and spent over three years with. Among the many self-admiring quotes are these."

"For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles". ...."As the truth of Christ is in me, no one shall stop me from this boasting in the regions of Achaia." 2Cor. 11:5,10 NKJV

"Sometimes, almost as though he knew he should be ashamed of such claims, he would tie his claim to a statement of unworthiness in the hope that the gullible would embrace him as the greatest of apostles because he was so humble."

"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all..." 1Cor. 15:9,10 NKJV

"To the Galations, Paul makes no pretense about how he compares himself to Peter, James, and John:

"But from those who seemed to be something - whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man- for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, ...and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship..." Gal. 2:6,7,9 NKJV

"A couple verses latter Paul takes a cheap shot at Peter and Barnabas. Without Peter or Barnabas anywhere in sight to defend themselves, Paul brags to the Galations about how he put Peter in his place before the entire church of Antioch."

"But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews played the hypocrite with him so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straight forward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "if you being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" Gal. 2:11-14 NKJV

"Then Paul goes on to describe how hypocritical Peter was being for living a different gospel from the one that he (Paul) preached. It is interesting to note that earlier, (Gal. 1:8,9) Paul commanded the Galations to damn, (not once but twice!), anyone who preaches a different gospel than that which he had preached. According to him then, that would include damning Peter, if not James and John also! It is obvious to the reader of the first two chapters of Galations, that Paul is demanding that the Galation church follow no one but him, not even the original apostles back in Jerusalem."

"It should also be noted that Paul himself was being the real hypocrite when he condemned Peter for accommodating Gentiles when he was around Gentiles and acting like a Jew around Jews, because in 1Cor. 9:19-22 Paul said:

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without the law as without law....that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." NKJV

"So Paul even admits that he will say anything to convert people to his new religion!"

"And in chapter 10 verses 31-33 Paul also said:

"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." NKJV

"So here we have Paul claiming to be greater than any other apostle. He insulted Peter, James, and John by saying they only "seemed" to be pillars of the church and they were nothing to him. He bragged about how he told off Peter and he subtly curses the apostles by telling the Galations to consider accursed anyone who differs with him. All this, while in fact, he was being the greatest hypocrite of all! If anyone else had even begun to do and say the things Paul did, we would have recognized their incredible conceit and rejected them a long time ago."

http://www.essene.com/Church/WasPaulAnApostle.html