Paul the Paraclete During a campaign against Paul that has gone on for years now, I have ever been a bit nervous that some well read and studious Protestant would shut me down with a quote from Gospel that would quite vindicate Paul. But it seems for all the talk Protestants do concerning the glories of the Bible, few of them actually read it, or care to consider what the different passages might actually mean. Well, I am through worrying and will simply come out with what the Protestants should have it me with long ago – it is that in John Chapter 16 we are given a description of the Paraclete, that is the Holy Spirit and ‘Comforter’, that was written obviously to refer to Paul. John Chapter 16 “ … it is for your own good that I am going because unless I go, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes he will show… I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now. However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking of his own accord, but will say only what he has been told; and he will reveal to you the things to come. He will glorify me, since all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine…” Here, The Greek Church of the early 2nd Century, using the platonic language of Greek Logos Philosophy, is telling us that Christ spoke only a basic and preliminary Message and found it his duty to be murdered so that Paul could sooner come along and give us The Truth in all of the fullest of detail. You see, many people of the Church, like I myself, were probably wondering aloud why Paul’s Doctrines were being set above those of Christ, and so this passage on the Paraclete, which, by the way, was not represented in any of the other Gospels, was slipped into the Record in order to effectively Deify Paul – claiming for Paul not only a veritable equality with Christ but putting words in Christ’s own mouth that were claiming that Paul’s message would be superior to His own. So why is it that Protestants do not resort to this obvious defense of Paul? I suppose it is because of their personal ambitions? You see, I suspect that Protestants are tempted to believe that each and every Protestant is to be individually possessed by the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit – they deny the passage as an after-the-fact prophecy for Paul because they would rather entertain the notion of their own greatness – that it was not something belonging to Paul, but something of their own. But, if a Protestant were to ever assert that the Gospel Truth is that Christ prophesized the Coming of Paul as the Fulfillment of the Complete Truth, then how would I reply? Well, I would have to point out that the Gospel of John had been written at least fifty years after Paul had come, taught, and had already died. The Gospel of John was nothing more than an expression of the Consensus of Doctrine that had been arrived at in the first years of the 2nd Century of the Christian Era. Some Doctrines were right, and some were wrong. It would be optimistic to suppose that God made the choices, but in fact much was decided by Rome’s destroying Jerusalem and scattering the Messianic Church, leaving the Gentile Congregations of Greece with a disproportionate Vote in the Church Councils. History from the period tells us that often issues were decided by violence, threats of imprisonment and incarceration and even large scale military actions between the gangs and militias of opposing Bishops. Doctrine therefore was often decided in favor of the least moral, least righteous, and the most ruthless and sinister of contingents. So it should not surprise us that Paul’s Doctrines had won out in many instances. But remember, Paul had been dead already for 50 years. In the grave he could no longer insist against all other influences but his own, and so we find other elements in the Gospel of John which indicate a Church that was still struggling to glimpse the Light from amidst all the Darkness. For instance, we have the most thorough presentation of the Blessedness of the Holy Sacrament in the Gospel of John. This contradicts the efforts of Paul, in First Corinthians Chapter 11, to dissuade Christians from the Holy Sacrament, claiming that it would turn to poison in the mouths of the Unworthy… remembering that Paul never stopped insisting upon each human beings intrinsic ‘unworthiness’. We also have, in the Gospel of John, the beginnings of the Cult of the Blessed Virgin, which Paul had never once ever encouraged. Consult John Chapter 19: “…Seeing His Mother and the disciple whom He loved standing near Her, Jesus said to His Mother, ‘Woman, this is your son.’ Then to the disciple he said, ‘This is your Mother’. And from that hour the disciple took Her into his home. Now, “the disciple Jesus loved” was a literary device meant to indicate the being and behavior of what an Exemplary Disciple would be. By having Christ bequeath to these Exemplary Disciples His very own Mother, and entrusting these Exemplary Disciples to His Mother, we see the beginnings of a Catholic Church that would be actively and decidedly Marian – a Church belonging to the Mother of Christ because Christ had personally authorized such a Dispensation. So we have it that in the one Gospel of John we discern a struggle between two factions: one of Paul and one of Mary. Who should win in this struggle? Well, we have had countless instances of Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin, while Paul has stayed dead in his grave. I would therefore prefer the Living and Continuing Revelation of Mary. We would be better off forgetting the opportunistic and seductively amoral and permissive lawless Doctrines of Paul.
This is an interesting post. But my question to you is. Can't Muhammad (pbuh) be elegible for the spot of the prophesied Pacelete or Comforter? Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The problem there is that the Gospel of John was written before Mohammed. When we examine the structure and content of all of the Gospels, they purport to 'predict' what had already happened by the time they were written; thus we have it that Mark, Mathew and Luke all 'prophesize' the Destruction of Jerusalem which had already occurred before pen was ever put to paper. but, yes, I could understand why Muslims would jump on the idea of the Paraclete being Mohammed, just like each Protestant Evangelist claims to be the Paraclete. But when we examine the Political Dynamics of which the Gospel of John was the product, then we can see that the Paraclete was obviously an invention to support the Doctrines of Paul.
Well if you believe that the Parclete was an invention to support the Doctrine of Paul? Cannot Crucifixion of Jesus (pbuh) also be an invention to support what Paul had taught? And if indeed it was an invention then why did Jesus (pbuh) in Bible say such a thing? Are you saying that Jesus (pbuh) never said this, but it was later put into his words? But if this is the case then that means the Bible has indeed been changed. Then how reliable is the Bible in terms of which is the truth and which is an invention? Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
786: Well if you believe that the Parclete was an invention to support the Doctrine of Paul? Cannot Crucifixion of Jesus (pbuh) also be an invention to support what Paul had taught? ************* M*W: 786, please allow me to add my two pfennigs in here. The Paraclete WAS an invention of Paul, and YES, Paul also invented the crucifixion to support what he taught. ************* 786: And if indeed it was an invention then why did Jesus (pbuh) in Bible say such a thing? ************* M*W: Jesus didn't say anything that was quoted by Paul, simply because Paul never met Jesus nor heard anything that the Rabbi Jesus might have said. Everything Paul wrote was fiction. ************* 786: Are you saying that Jesus (pbuh) never said this, but it was later put into his words? ************* M*W: Let me put it this way, 786, Jesus fulfilled NO prophecies as stated in the OT, nor did Jesus say anything that was written in the NT. The NT was an invention of Paul to support his own evil doings. ************* 786: But if this is the case then that means the Bible has indeed been changed. Then how reliable is the Bible in terms of which is the truth and which is an invention? ************* M*W: The bible has indeed been changed (or mistranslated) thousands of times. The bible is NOT a reliable source as it doesn't contain any factual truths but fiction. The NT bible is the invention of Paul.
It would be easier and simpler to see Paul's explanations as excuses to cover for the Murder of the Messiah. It was Paul making Lemon Aid out of Lemons. He was responding to an opportunity... an accomplished fact. Now, if Christ were to live, then Christ would have been there to protect his own Religious Agenda. But when Christ was removed from the Field, leaving behind His Name and Fame, it was only a matter of time before some clever Sherlock would contrive a way to capitalize on the Worst Crime ever committed by Humanity against God. Re-construing that Murder as a Sacrifice was the Formula for Success that Paul eventually landed upon. As he picked up momentum he developed his Product to offer Forgiveness of Sins and the Rejection of all Laws and Moral Restraints. Who wouldn't buy that?
You really haven't answered any of my previously posed questions. Could you please answer them. Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you think it important enough to answer, then maybe you might think it important enough to ask. If you can't type a question, I won't type an answer.
Did you read my essay? If you haven't noticed there is more to knowledge than definition of nominal concepts. Words are only words. The Encyclopedia Britannica is ten times the size of any dictionary, showing that the sum of knowledge goes way beyond using easy words to clarify harder words. My essay points out that the Paulist's of the early 2nd Century, to answer widespread doubts concerning paul, had the 'Paraclete Speech' inserted into the revisionist Gospel of John in order to give paul a boost in credability after the fact. They were using the Idea of the Holy Spirit to lift paul up to and even above the Level of Christ. Could we believe it? Well, no. Paul accomplished no positive miracle. No walking on water. No water into wine. He once yelled at a little old man until the poor old guy had a stroke. Then a young spry lad fell out a low window and had the wind knocked out of him and paul happened by while the boy recovered his breath. Those are not positive miracles. Paul did not take the initiative to demonstrate a clearly impossible act. Paul grabbed a few lucky coincidences and milked them for pubicity. We know what Power can really recide in a True Saint. Francis of Paola could manipulate matter, changing size and weight of huge structural beams and boulders so a few little old ladies could unload a truck load of marble pillars, and pulling beams to be 40% longer because at the last minute he decided to build a larger chapel. He was able to raise a platter of fried trout from the dead... because he was a vegetarian. Without being angered at workmen who ate his little pet lamb for lunch, he was able to raise the bones and fleece from the dead. A Bishop asked him not to show off. So when a man fell from a Steeple, Francis stopped his fall in mid air and left him hanging in empty space for an hour, before the entire town, while he went to consult the Bishop as to whether saving a man's life would just be considered more 'showing off'. When traveling to visit the King of France by order of the Pope, who wanted the King to have some spiritual influence, Francis was asked by the delegations of certain towns to send his Blessing to cure the plague. Even to this day the Medical Records show that these towns are still immune to contagious disease. While in these two towns no person can catch the plague, or the flu, or even a cold. Its a 400 year miralcle. Joseph of Copertino not only levitated but actively flew. They say he could fly as swift as an arrow and spin faster than a top. Indoors and out. He could fly the length and breath of the Cathedrals, but you might suspect some wires. But out of doors he could fly over trees, over walls, over the roof tops, and not just momentarily over single vacinities, but circling over moving Processions, beyond the capability of any mechanical device of his day or ours. Vincent Ferrer, the Greatest Saint in History, could address a multitude of 100,000 people in a small frail voice speaking only Castillian Spanish, and everybody would hear him, from no matter how far away from the podium, in their own language. And he would empty out the City hospitals, healing everybody of everything. They said that the only miracle for Vincent Ferrer would be a day without a thousand miracles. He would be busy and would ask the local clergy to go to neighboring towns to heal their sick also, and to their surprise they would have the gift of absolute healing for the day. Ferrer had so much Power that he could delegate it and give it away. But the Paulists insist Paul was the Paraclete because he gave some old man a stroke. Yeah, right.
Paul had shown no signs of 'lifted up by the Holy Spirit' except his manifested faith on Jesus. You pointed out no miracles from him during his time. If any attempt made to indicate Paul as the paraclete it would be an obvious attempt of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Paul could have been dumped as heretic in the dustbin of history long back even before the emergence of protestants. It did not happen. Does that mean the church was the biggest blasphemer of the Holy Spirit?
What kind of response is this? I did type my questions. I'll type them again. Well if you believe that the Parclete was an invention to support the Doctrine of Paul. Cannot Crucifixion of Jesus (pbuh) also be an invention to support what Paul had taught? And if indeed it was an invention then why did Jesus (pbuh) in Bible say such a thing? Are you saying that Jesus (pbuh) never said this, but it was later put into his words? But if this is the case then that means the Bible has indeed been changed. Then how reliable is the Bible in terms of which is the truth and which is an invention? Peace be unto you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
