1Cor:1:10: Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1Cor:1:11: For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Cor:1:12: Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Cor:1:13: Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Obviously these Christians were already painfully aware of the fact that Paul contradicted Christ and Peter ("Cephas"), while Peter contradicted Christ and Paul! They had to choose amongst the different teachings of these men, and for convenience sake began saying "I am of Paul", or Christ, or Peter, etc. It was not their fault that these men contradicted each other, and Paul was unjust to take them to task for it. Paul himself was guilty of causing some of this sectarianism by contradicting Christ and Peter.

1Cor:1:25: Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1Cor:1:26: For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Cor:1:27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Since Paul’s message is a mass of contradictory nonsense, it is little wonder that not many wise men fell for it. If "foolishness" were the criteria for ascertaining the truth, then Paul’s message would have a lot of competition from such things as Astrology, Numerology, etc. How would one decide which is the most foolish? And why would anyone but a fool think that foolishness was a proof of a philosophy’s truthfulness?

It is ironic that Paul spent so much effort debating and writing so many letters attempting to use logic and argument to persuade people to embrace Christianity and remain in the fold. In the end he admitted that it was all "foolishness"! Perhaps he was honest enough to realize, when he looked back upon all his writings, that "foolishness" was all they really amounted to. Evidently people with any intelligence quickly came to the same conclusion and wisely decided to reject Paul’s foolish philosophy.

1Cor:2:7: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1Cor:2:8: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Once again Paul reaffirmed his belief in predestination. Then he made the false assertion that the "princes of this world" crucified the Lord. Which princes, exactly, were those?

1Cor:2:15: But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

From the context it is apparent that Paul was referring to Christians as "he that is spiritual". According to this, Christians are to judge all things. This is in direct contradiction to what Paul said elsewhere:

Rom:2:1: Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

1Cor:4:5: Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

It also flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching about judging:

Mt:7:1: Judge not, that ye be not judged.

1Cor:3:8: Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

This smacks of "salvation by works"! Paul repeatedly pointed out in Romans that there was to be no reward for good works: only faith. Here he contradicted himself by saying there will be a reward for labor (i.e. good works)! It also contradicts the whole point of Jesus’ parable of the laborers (in which each laborer receives the same reward even though the amount of their labor varied Mt 20:1-15). No wonder that those he preached to and wrote to were confused; Paul himself was confused!

1Cor:3:17: If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Jesus said that every sort of sin would be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Spirit. Paul says that if we defile our bodies God will destroy us. Which are we to believe?

1Cor:3:18: Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

Once again Paul encouraged us to become fools. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that someone with a bit of wisdom would see that Christianity was a mass of self-contradictions?

1Cor:3:21: Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

How is it that "all things are yours"? So my house is really your house if you’re a Christian? No wonder so many famous Christian "evangelists" have engaged in fraud and what non-Christians would call "stealing"; Paul told them everything belonged to them! Evidently this rule of ownership even applies to the owning of people:

1Cor:3:22: Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

In this regard we will shortly see Paul’s attitude towards slavery.

1Cor:4:15: For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1Cor:4:16: Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

Paul started out this epistle by scolding the Corinthians for saying "I am of Paul". He said he was glad that he hadn’t baptized many of them so that they wouldn’t claim to be followers of Paul. He warned them to follow only Christ. But here he sang a different tune: "I have begotten you…be ye followers of me"!

1Cor:4:17: For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

Paul drove the point home: he would send his son to "bring you into remembrance of my ways". That leaves no doubt that Paul wanted them to be "of Paul".

1Cor:5:3: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

1Cor:5:5: To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Not only had Paul ignored Jesus’ command to "judge not", he had also prejudged the case before arriving on the scene or hearing what the accused might have to say in his defense.

What would the punishment of "destruction of the flesh" entail, do you suppose? If someone threatened to destroy my flesh in order to save my spirit, I would assume they were religious fanatics who wanted to murder me. If I knew that they had already judged me guilty before even meeting me, I would run and never look back!

1Cor:6:3: Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
1Cor:6:4: If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
1Cor:6:5: I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
1Cor:6:6: But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
1Cor:6:7: Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

Yet again Paul encouraged judgment: of worldly matters and of brethren. Paul said that it is better to be defrauded than to assert your rights in a court of law! In this latter view at least he agreed with Jesus. The legal system has been designed, amongst other things, to protect the rights of the weak against the strong. To forbid Christians from availing themselves of this institution sets them back at the mercy of the unscrupulous. It is another step backwards in making the world a place of justice.

1Cor:6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cor:6:10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul had once again forgotten about salvation by faith and the fact that Jesus claimed all sins were forgivable except that against the Holy Spirit. In direct contradiction of Paul’s words here, Jesus said:

Mt:21:31: …Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

"Harlots" would certainly come under "fornicators" and "adulterers" in Paul’s list of people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Yet Jesus says they are going into the kingdom of God!

1Cor:6:12: All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

Paul had placed himself above the law. Laws exist for the good of all. When someone thinks they are above the law and can do as they please, society finds it necessary to protect itself from such criminals. Doubtless there have been bad laws which people were justified in breaking. But Paul didn’t limit his freedom to bad laws: he said everything was lawful for him! I can only hope that Christians who believe Paul’s words are inspired will overlook these words!

1Cor:7:1: Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1Cor:7:2: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1Cor:7:5: Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
1Cor:7:6: But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
1Cor:7:7: For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
1Cor:7:8: I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Cor:7:9: But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

It is not good for a man to touch a woman? On what basis? How did Paul define "good"? Sensual touch between lovers is one of the greatest joys of our existence. Only a deranged individual would make a blanket condemnation of a man and woman touching!

Paul did not encourage marrying for love. He allowed marriage just to prevent fornication! No wonder Christian women have felt like "sex objects" for so long!

Paul said that it is okay to "defraud one another" as long as it is mutually agreed upon for a time! The definition of "defraud" is "to cheat". Taken as written, Paul said it is okay for spouses to cheat on each other.

Some will say that this is simply a bad translation, and what Paul meant was not that they should defraud each other but that they should abstain from sex so that they might fast and pray instead. What a great philosophy of life!

1Cor:7:18: Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

You will recall that in Acts 16:3 Paul circumcised Timotheus, who had been "called in uncircumcision". Evidently Paul was like Jesus in not practicing what he preached.

I wonder what the procedure would be to get "uncircumcised"? Was Paul worried about Jewish Christians attempting to graft skin onto the tips of their penises? It seems a strange thing to worry about. If we argue that Paul meant by "becoming uncircumcized" that a Jewish Christian would cease following the Mosaic Law, then Paul contradicted himself, because he said the Law had passed away and only faith in Jesus was needed. Therefore, if this symbolic meaning is what Paul had in mind for "uncircumcision", then he should have encouraged it instead of forbidding it!

1Cor:7:25: Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
1Cor:7:26: I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
1Cor:7:27: Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
1Cor:7:28: But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
1Cor:7:29: But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
1Cor:7:30: And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
1Cor:7:31: And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

Paul advocated celibacy and encouraged men to neglect their wives because "the time is short". He must’ve thought that Jesus’ "Second Coming" was imminent and Christians would be taken up into the clouds any minute. Paul has been dead nearly 2,000 years now. Christ never came. Paul was wrong. His advice was given due to a false impression. Are we then to continue to follow his advice?

1Cor:8:5: For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1Cor:8:6: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Paul stated that there is only one God. Who is this one God? "The Father". Jesus is not the Father, Jesus is the Father’s Son. Note what Paul said of Jesus: "and [there is] one Lord Jesus Christ". Paul made an absolute distinction here between God and Jesus. From these words one would never conclude that Paul thought Jesus was God. And yet, Thomas called Jesus "God" in John 20:28, and the Gospel of John had this to say about Jesus (calling him "the Word"):

Jn:1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So the Bible teaches that Jesus is God and that Jesus is not God. Which are we to believe? It depends upon which Scriptures you accept as-is and which Scriptures you "explain away". Several people have been burned at the stake for making the wrong choice at the wrong time. Too bad the creator of the universe couldn’t create a non-ambiguous book!

1Cor:9:9: For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
1Cor:9:10: Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Paul implied that God does not care for oxen, and that a law which would seem to benefit them is really for our benefit. The way he asked the question implies that it would be ridiculous to think that God cared about animals. This contradicts the spirit of Jesus’ teaching:

Lk:12:6: Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?

1Cor:9:24: Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

Here Paul contradicted what he said in his letter to the Romans:

Rom:9:16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

There he was arguing that God decides who shall be saved and it has nothing to do with personal striving to receive that prize.

1Cor:9:27: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Paul feared that he might be castaway after all of his labor for the Lord! What happened to "salvation by faith"? Now it appears that failing to have one’s body under "subjection" is the unforgivable sin!

1Cor:10:1: Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;1Cor:
10:2: And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

The Old Testament account shows that they were not "under the cloud"; at first the cloud went before them:

Ex:13:21: And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:
Ex:13:22: He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.

During the encounter at the Red Sea, the cloud positioned itself behind them:

Ex:14:19: And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:
Ex:14:20: And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.

The Israelites were not "baptized" in the Red Sea; they passed through it dry:

Ex:14:21: And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.
Ex:14:22: And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

If anyone was "baptized" on that occasion, it was the Egyptians who were engulfed by the waters and drowned!

Paul went on to recount the sorry episodes in Exodus where God’s "Chosen People" were repeatedly killed by God for doing things He didn’t like. Paul then concluded:

1Cor:10:11: Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

So it seems that the individuals unfortunate enough to have left Egypt with Moses were simply examples for Christians (showing them how not to behave)! Their lives were expendable (and in fact the Bible tells us that none of them made it to the "promised" land!) Jesus told us that God cares about the death of every sparrow, but Paul told us that he didn’t really care about his "chosen people" during Moses’ time: they were just examples. If they were unable to follow the Law (which Paul elsewhere admits no one can follow), God was justified in destroying them. They didn’t really matter as individuals; they were only serving as an example to the truly important people: later-day Christians. Paul’s arrogance, egotism, and complete lack of empathy was painfully manifest here. To so glibly dismiss the suffering of thousands of people demonstrates why Paul himself serves as a bad example of morality.

1Cor:10:15: I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

After repeatedly exhorting his readers to shun wisdom and become fools, Paul said he was speaking as to wise men! How bizarre!

1Cor:11:1: Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Once again Paul asked his readers to be his followers in the same way that Paul was a follower of Christ! No wonder they were saying, "I am of Paul"! But, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Paul was not a very good follower of Christ; he often contradicted Christ’s teachings.

1Cor:11:3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Paul was describing a hierarchy with God at the top, and women at the bottom. These are not equal relationships. Therefore, God and Jesus are not equal (and therefore the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true).

Since Paul said that "the head of the woman is the man", he held that women are inferior to men (just as men are inferior to Christ). Since Paul’s time it has been scientifically proven that women are superior to men in every way. But since both sexes are needed, it is best for society as a whole if women treat men as if they were their equals. How odd that the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul, didn’t know simple biology and sociology! How odd that the Holy Spirit chose to perpetuate a divisive falsehood created by men!

1Cor:11:4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Cor:11:5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Cor:11:6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Cor:11:7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Cor:11:8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cor:11:9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1Cor:11:10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.1Cor:11:11: Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
1Cor:11:12: For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
1Cor:11:13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Cor:11:14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1Cor:11:15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Here Paul’s fashion tastes got a hearing in the "Word of God"!

How does "nature" teach that long hair on a man is shameful and long hair on a woman is glorious? I happen to share this particular opinion with Paul, but I admit that it is exactly that: an opinion – a personal taste fostered by my culture. In other species we find that it is the male that most often is adorned to attract the female. To take just one example: compare the male peacock with its long tail feathers to what we would consider the "plain" female. If nature teaches us anything, it is the opposite of what Paul claimed.

Had he seen Samson, Paul would’ve thought his looks were "shameful" because he had long hair. Yet the Scriptures associate his long hair with holiness, not shame:

Judg:13:5: For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

This was what God said about men who vowed to be Nazarites:

Num:6:5: All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

Far from being shameful, God said long hair on a man was a sign of holiness! How bizarre it is that Paul’s personal opinions and tastes get palmed off as "the Word of God", especially when they contradict the supposed words of God!

Paul said that man "is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man". How is it that man is the image of God but woman is not? The word "image" implies a visual difference. The visual differences between a man and a woman are sexual. So, based on Paul’s words, we are to imagine God as having a penis and scrotum. Now why would God have a penis and scrotum unless he made use of them? There are two functions for a penis, and I find it rather ridiculous to imagine God performing either of them. I guess Christians could point to the Virgin Mary as one example of God putting his member to use, but I think most would find that sacrilegious. Remember: I didn’t bring this subject up; Paul did!

Finally, Paul contradicted himself by saying that a woman must cover her head when she prays (or else be shorn in punishment).  He also said that long hair serves as a covering. If long hair serves as a covering, what need does a woman have for a second covering?

1Cor:11:16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul seemed to backpedal here. After writing explicit instructions about how a woman must cover her head when she prays (or be shaved bald in punishment), he told his readers that if any man wanted to argue about the matter, to just pretend that they didn’t have any such custom! I wonder what would happen if a woman argued about the matter!

1Cor:13:8: Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Paul was certainly correct in saying that the prophecies of the Bible would fail.

1Cor:13:11: When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

"Putting away childish things" contradicts the spirit of Jesus’ teaching:

Mt:18:3: And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Paul said we should put away childish ways, Jesus said we must adopt childish ways. Which is it?

1Cor:14:34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cor:14:35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Didn’t Paul say that the Law had passed away? Why did he invoke it here against women? If women had to keep silent in the churches because of the Law, then Paul should’ve carried around a circumcision knife to use on all of the Gentile men he converted!

Could it be that Paul hated women? Why would he think that it would be shameful for them to speak in church? Why did he assume that the women would need to ask their husbands questions in order to learn anything? Couldn’t Paul conceive of a situation in which the wife was smarter than the husband, and the husband would be the one needing to ask the questions of his wife?

1Cor:14:37: If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Elsewhere, Paul acknowledged that at least some of what he wrote was not a commandment of the Lord, but were his own thoughts:

1Cor:7:25: Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Since much of what Paul wrote contradicted Christ’s teachings, it would be a test of one’s faith in Paul to proclaim that his writings were "commandments of the Lord". Paul had just finished relating how a woman should not speak in church. According to Paul, in order to be judged "spiritual", we must believe that this is a "commandment of the Lord", not just Paul’s misogynous opinion.

It is interesting to see how Paul evidently changed from ‘knowing nothing but Christ crucified’ to instituting a test of spirituality based on acceptance of Paul’s writings! It would seem that his success at preaching his new religion had gone to his head.

1Cor:15:28: And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Once again Paul delivered a line which completely refutes the idea of the Trinity. How could the Son be eternally equal to the Father if the Son will be in subjection to the Father?

1Cor:15:29: Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Here is a verse that only a Mormon can explain. Paul said that people (evidently Christians) were being baptized for dead people. This is why Mormons maintain genealogical information; when someone converts they can get baptized for their dead ancestors and save them! Other Christians may scoff at this, but Paul spoke of it as if it were a valid practice, so it is no more ridiculous than, say, regularly eating Jesus (aka "communion").

1Cor:16:22: If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

The definition of "anathema" follows:

A formal ecclesiastical ban, curse, or excommunication. 2. A vehement denunciation; a curse. 3. One that is cursed or damned. 4. One that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned.

Jesus said never to curse one’s enemies. What do you think he would’ve thought about Paul’s injunction to let people be "anathema"?

2Cor:1:8: For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life:

For a time, at least, Paul felt that God had given him more than he could bear. This could never have happened according to Paul’s own words:

1Cor:10:13: There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Remember when Paul said that good works could not save one because all men were unrighteous? Remember how he said that faith alone could save one? Listen to what he said next:

2Cor:5:10: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

From this it appears that good deeds are what will matter after all when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ!

2Cor:6:4: But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,
2Cor:6:5: In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;

This is quite a contrast to what Jesus taught his followers to expect:

Mt:11:30: For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Paul continued to rattle off the "things approving ourselves as the ministers of God":

2Cor:6:8: By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true;

How’s that again? "As deceivers"? Just a few paragraphs ago Paul said:

2Cor:4:2: But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

So how can it be that they are "deceivers"? And how could deception ever be "true"? I think this is very revealing of Paul’s philosophy. Elsewhere he said that he had no qualms about lying in order to further his cause:

Rom:3:7: For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

The question for us, as we formulate our own personal philosophy of life, is this: how much should we trust a man who admits to lying about the very thing he is trying to convince us of? Paul said "love believes all things" (1 Cor. 13:7) but that’s not love: it’s gullibility. To believe "all things" that a self-confessed liar and deceiver proclaimed is indeed foolish (maybe that’s why Paul encouraged us to abandon wisdom and become as fools (1 Cor. 1:26-27)!)

2Cor:6:14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Cor:6:15: And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Cor:6:16: And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Cor:6:17: Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

These verses are used by Christian cults to force their members to abandon all their former friends and family members who do not join up. If you are "of Paul", you’d better not have any non-Christian friends; that would be touching the "unclean thing"! Notice how far Paul had come from "knowing only Christ, and him crucified"? We have seen him give grooming tips, fashion opinions, intimate marital advice, and here he told us who we can have as friends! And all of his writings, he claimed, were the "commandment of the Lord"!

Paul’s attitude here doesn’t sound very much like a commandment Jesus would give. Jesus was known for associating with harlots, tax-collectors, and publicans of his day. He taught that such people would go into the Kingdom of God ahead of those who considered themselves righteous:

Mt:9:10: And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

Mt:21:31: …Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

2Cor:8:8: I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.

Once again Paul admitted to writing down his own opinions rather than the commandments of the Lord. How strange that he required people to accept writings with such statements in them as though there were the "commandments of the Lord" (1Cor 14:37).

The main point of the Second Letter to the Corinthians seems to be that Paul had exacted a pledge of money from them and was sending some men ahead of him to make sure they had the money ready when Paul got there. To shame them into it, Paul told them that he had proclaimed to congregations in other cities that the Corinthians were going to cough up this huge sum of money. And what was all this money for? Paul and the other evangelists:

2Cor:9:3: Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready:
2Cor:9:4: Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting.
2Cor:9:5: Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready, as a matter of bounty, and not as of covetousness.
2Cor:9:6: But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
2Cor:9:7: Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
2Cor:9:8: And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:
2Cor:9:9: (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.
2Cor:9:10: Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness;)
2Cor:9:11: Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God.
2Cor:9:12: For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God;

Paul trotted out the usual promises of God supplying all their wants if only they would give him their money. Isn’t it ironic that Paul had to beg for money for himself and the "saints" when God supposedly supplies all a believer’s wants? Why didn’t God take care of Paul and the saints? Why did they have to be supported by other believers?

Paul was here making elaborate preparations "for the morrow". This goes directly against Jesus’ teaching:

Mt:6:31: Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Mt:6:32: (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Mt:6:33: But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Mt:6:34: Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Some of the work that Paul and the saints wanted to be paid for was next outlined by Paul:

2Cor:10:5: Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
2Cor:10:6: And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Casting down imaginations and bringing thoughts into captivity are euphemisms for brainwashing.

Paul said he was ready to take revenge on any disobedience. Once again Paul failed to practice what he preached. Here he clearly broke the "Lord’s commandment" which he wrote to the Romans:

Rom:12:19: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

2Cor:11:8: I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

Here Paul unashamedly admitted to being a thief!

2Cor:12:2: I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Paul’s reference to the "third heaven" leads one to wonder just how many heavens there are in Christian theology!

Paul spent a great deal of his letter tooting his own horn. He boasted that he was as good an apostle as anyone, and had in fact suffered more for the religion than anyone else.

2Cor:12:11: I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

Paul insisted that the Corinthians should have commended him for all he had done. Since they had not commended him, he related at great length all he had done to deserve praise. This seems to me the antithesis of humility. Earlier in this very letter Paul implied a criticism of those who needed commendation and that he would not ask for commendation:

2Cor:3:1: Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

In contrast, Jesus taught not to draw attention to one’s good works or seek approval from men:

Mt:6:1: Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Mt:6:2: Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mt:6:3: But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
Mt:6:4: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

2Cor:12:12: Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Paul forgot that "signs and wonders" were not proof of apostleship, but could just as easily identify him as a false prophet:

Mt:24:24: For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

2Cor:13:1: …In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Imagine being wrongfully accused of something under Paul’s judicial system: you would have no defense as long as at least two witnesses came forth to accuse you! If the Romans hadn’t had a judicial system superior to the one Paul had received (from the "Lord’s commandment"), Paul (having been accused by more than two) would’ve been long gone and we never would’ve had to read this letter!

When Paul appeared before the council (in Acts 23) he did not practice what he preached by saying: "Two or more have accused me, therefore their case is established: do with me what you will." Instead he attempted to defend himself, and even used a lie to play the council members against each other.

2Cor:13:2: I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare:
2Cor:13:3: Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.

In order to prove that Jesus (who taught to "turn the other cheek" and not to judge others Mt. 7:1) was speaking "in Paul", Paul threatened those he judged to be sinners. This is inherently inconsistent.

Gal:1:11: But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Gal:1:12: For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal:1:13: For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
Gal:1:14: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Gal:1:15: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Gal:1:16: To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Paul made it clear that his knowledge about Jesus and his ideas about the meaning of his death did not come from the apostles or disciples who knew Jesus. Paul declared that he paid no attention to what anyone who knew Jesus said about him. Paul’s ideas came from "visions" in Paul’s own head. As far as Paul was concerned, we can throw out the Gospels and all of Jesus’ words, and focus solely on what Paul allegedly was told by Jesus in visions.

What a tremendous amount of trust Christians have placed in this man’s visions! As we have seen, Paul contradicted Jesus’ teachings on many points. We have also noted that Paul admitted to lying, and stooping to deception in order to spread his "truth". This being the case, we realize that Paul was quite correct when he said that we would have to become fools in order to accept his message.

Gal:3:11: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

This is in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught:

Mt:19:16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mt:19:17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mt:19:18: He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mt:19:19: Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Do these commandments sound familiar? They should; they are part of the Law that Paul claimed can justify no man in the sight of God. If this were true, why did Jesus reply to the question: "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" with: "keep the commandments"?

Gal:3:16: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

This is sheer sophistry! Paul claimed that the promises God made to Abraham’s offspring (i.e. the Jews) were not meant for them at all, but for Jesus (and by extension the followers of Jesus: the Christians)! The basis for his argument is that the promise was made to Abraham’s "seed" (singular) not "seeds" plural. This is a feeble argument since "seed" can be used to refer to more than one seed, and in fact is used in this way throughout the Bible.

In a similar situation, God made a covenant with Noah and his "seed":

Gen:9:8: And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Gen:9:9: And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

To be logically consistent, Paul would have to hold that the covenant with Noah’s "seed" referred to one individual. But instead, he argued that this covenant with Noah applied to all of mankind (which may be one of the reasons why the restriction against blood, given to Noah, was imposed upon the Gentiles at Acts 15:28-29).

Interestingly enough, in his letter to the Romans, Paul referred to this same "seed" promise and applied it to not only the entire nation of Israel, but other nations as well:

Rom:4:16: Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Gal:3:21: Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Paul argued that the Law was perfect and that if anyone had been able to perfectly follow it they would’ve been righteous and would’ve earned their salvation. But would following the Law really make one righteous? To follow the Law perfectly we would have to kill anyone working on the Sabbath. We would have to stone any woman who was not a virgin at marriage. We would have to take the lives of many innocent animals and burn their bodies in sacrifice. We would have to stone any child that was accused of being "rebellious" by their parents. We would have to kill any rape victim that was raped in the city… Do you really think that following this Law would make you "righteous"?

Gal:3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Time and again we have seen Paul contradict this statement by giving different rules and privileges to Jews. But he also contradicted himself in regards to women: if there is neither male nor female, then how can it be that the males are allowed to speak in church and leave their heads uncovered while the females are not?

Gal:4:12: Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.

Once again Paul encouraged his readers to follow him, not Jesus.

Gal:5:11: And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

Once again Paul claimed that he was not preaching circumcision. But if actions speak louder than words, his circumcising of Timotheus in Acts 16:3 certainly preached circumcision!

Gal:5:12: I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Here, Paul wished death to those who disagreed with his theology! Ironically, he next wrote about the importance of loving one’s neighbor!

Gal:5:14: For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Eph:1:4: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph:1:5: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

In case we missed the point previously, Paul provided us with yet another affirmation of his belief in predestination. See my previous comments on the absurdity of this belief.

Eph:2:2: Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Here Paul revealed his belief in an evil spirit that is "the prince of the power of the air"! He evidently believed that this spirit could work on children to cause them to be disobedient.

Specifically addressing the Gentiles, Paul related that Jesus:

Eph:2:15: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph:2:16: And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph:2:17: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

Paul makes three false claims about Jesus here:

1. Jesus "abolished" the "law of commandments". Jesus said as plainly as possible that he did not come to abolish the law (MT 5:17-19)
2. Jesus came to make peace. Jesus plainly said he had not come to bring peace (MT 10:34)
3. Jesus preached to "you which were far off". Jesus plainly stated that he had not come to preach to the Gentiles, but exclusively to the "house of Israel" (MT 10:5,6; 15:24).

These mistakes of Paul clearly show that he knew nothing of the "historical Jesus", and that the man he imagined seeing in his visions was nothing like the Jesus of the Gospels.

Eph:4:14: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

In direct contradiction to this, Jesus said that unless we become as children we will not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Mt:18:3). Interestingly, Paul contradicted himself on this very point just a few verses later:

Eph:5:1: Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

Maybe what Paul was after was for his followers to be as gullible as children when listening to him, but to be suspicious of any "worldly wisdom". In other words, he wanted them to use a double standard.

Eph:5:22: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph:5:23: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph:5:24: Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

No comment should be required in our enlightened age on the absurdity of the above. The idea that one human being should be subservient to another is abhorrent to anyone who has reached even the most rudimentary level of moral maturity. But besides the self-evident immorality of Paul’s words, we must also note their total lack of logic. We need to ask why it should be that the husband is the head of the wife. On what basis? Just because Paul said so? Or because of the absurd story of woman being created from man’s rib? If a woman must be submissive to a man because she was created out of him, then it would follow that a man must be submissive to the dust of the ground, since he was created out of it (Gen. 2:7)!

Since there is no sensible reason for Paul’s proclamation that women are subservient creatures, we are left with just one more opinion. An opinion that has kept countless millions of people in virtual slavery, leading lives of dull drudgery when they might’ve had significant contributions they could’ve made to society. Who knows how many wars could’ve been avoided if women had been in charge?

It is opinions such as these, taken as "God’s Word" which has made the Bible the most harmful book ever written.

Eph:6:5: Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Here Paul supported the idea of slavery. Later we will see him sending an escaped slave back to his "owner". I guess the saying "the truth shall set you free" wasn’t to be taken literally. During the time of the American Civil War, ministers in the South used verses such as these to justify slavery. I wonder how many lives would have been spared and how much misery averted if people hadn’t taken Paul’s opinions as "God’s Word" or if Paul had written that slavery was evil.

It is easy to see why the rich and powerful (the type of people who would own slaves) have encouraged Christianity amongst the poor; no other tool works so effectively to keep people in grateful subservience.

Phil:1:29: For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

This contradicts what Jesus what Jesus said about those following him having a light and easy burden (Mt. 11:30).

Phil:2:12: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Phil:2:13: For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Once again Paul contradicted his own idea of salvation through faith alone. Here he said one must "work" on one’s own salvation.

Phil:3:17: Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

Once again Paul asked for followers of himself.

Phil:4:5: Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

In what sense was the Lord "at hand" nearly two thousand years ago? Paul evidently felt that Christ’s return was imminent. He was wrong.

Col:1:18: And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

How could Jesus be "the firstborn from the dead" if Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the dead before Jesus himself died?

Col:1:23: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

The gospel certainly hadn’t been "preached to every creature which is under heaven". Paul and his cohorts were unaware of the existence of half the world. Also, I’m sure that they hadn’t preached to all the animals and insects even in the known world.

Col:3:18: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Once again Paul reiterated his view that women must submit to their husbands. See my comments under Eph 5:22-24 on this.

Col:3:22: Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:
Col:3:23: And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Col:3:24: Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
Col:3:25: But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.
Col:4:1: Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Paul’s views on slavery were once again on display. Notice that he didn’t tell the "masters" to free their slaves, and he admonished slaves to work for their "masters" as if they were working for Jesus Christ himself! Slave-owners must’ve loved Paul!

1Thes:1:6: And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:

Once again Paul instructed his readers to follow him first and the Lord second.

1Thes:2:10: Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:

Despite his repeated claims that he would not boast about himself or recount all the things he had suffered in his ministry, a great deal of Paul’s letters consist of precisely that. He went on and on about how he had suffered and served and had gone largely unrewarded and unappreciated. Such things may have been of some interest to his readers at the time, but they hardly warrant our study today.

1Thes:2:13: For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Paul had come a long way from ‘knowing only Christ, and him crucified’, and admitting that he was giving his own opinions. Here he claimed that what he wrote was "the word of God"! This is quite a claim when you recall that Paul never knew Jesus, and never listened to what those who may have known him had to say about what he may have taught. Paul based everything on a theology which he made up in his own mind and claimed to have received in visions from a dead man he never knew. This is all the more dubious when we recognize the fact that Paul’s theology largely contradicts what Jesus is reputed to have said!

1Thes:2:14: For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
1Thes:2:15: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

This is pure, unabashed anti-Semitism. According to Paul, the Jews killed Jesus (elsewhere he said it was the "prices of the earth" that did this), they are displeasing to God, and they are contrary to all men. That’s quite a condemnation. I wonder how much of the suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of Christians can be credited to Paul’s hateful words here.

1Thes:4:13: But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Thes:4:14: For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
1Thes:4:15: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Thes:4:16: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Thes:4:17: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

From these words we know that Paul believed that at least some of his readers would still be alive when Jesus would "descend from heaven with a shout". Paul was wrong. His readers who were mourning dead friends did not live to see them resurrected at Christ’s "second coming". They all died, and they have been dead for nearly two thousand years. How anyone can delude themselves into thinking that Paul was right, and that what he wrote is still going to happen is beyond me. Christians are still waiting for this "rapture" to occur. I guess they haven’t any knowledge of the natural sciences and believe that it’s possible to defy gravity and live in the clouds forever. It’s sad that such ignorance exists in our day, but it is even sadder that such nonsense is called "truth" and "wisdom".

2Thes:1:4: So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
2Thes:1:5: Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

Here Paul revealed that, far from obtaining salvation by simply believing in Jesus, a Christian must prove worthy of the Kingdom of God by suffering.

2Thes:1:6: Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Thes:1:7: And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Thes:1:8: In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Thes:1:9: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
2Thes:1:10: When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Once again Paul wrote of Christ’s "second coming" as an imminent event in which the very individuals who were persecuting the Thessalonians would be destroyed in a burning vengeance. Once again Paul was completely wrong in his expectations and in his supposed writing of the "word of God".

The end of the second letter to the Thessalonians basically consists of Paul throwing his weight around and threatening those who would not unquestioningly obey his "commandments":

2Thes:3:4: And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
2Thes:3:6: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
2Thes:3:7: For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;

2Thes:3:14: And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

Since Paul is dead, of what use are these words to us today? Since Paul is no longer issuing commandments, we cannot obey them. All this "word of God" means to me is that Paul was conceited and liked to be in control, ordering people about.

Prev Next Contents