Critiques about Paul from 200 AD to Present

The link below is to a PDF eBook that is a partial collection of critiques about Paul, the self-proclaimed apostle. There are many comments in the document spanning nearly 2,000 years.

Some think that only I have discovered the problems with Paul and his custom-made theology. But that is certainly not the case. In 2005 I discovered this document. It started to make me think. It was then that I decided to “fast” from reading any of Paul’s writings. After a couple of years, I went back and started to read something at random from Paul’s letters. That was a shock to see how bitter and angry he was and how deeply he was literally oppressing the people. Then later, I found that they writings of Mark and Luke was also faulty. They were close associates of Paul and helped him write and edit the Greek New Testament.

To download the eBook “right click” on the link and then click on “Save target as” or “Save link as”

Here is the link to download the eBook:
Critiques of Paul from 200AD to Present

9 thoughts on “Critiques about Paul from 200 AD to Present

  1. Robert

    Hi Timothy Thank you for your reply sorry if I sounded like I was being ignored I just thought you were busy and might have forgotten, as usual your reply makes sense and I agree Armstrong definately didn’t have the answers ,but he did make me think and that led me to do my own research, which brought me to your blog. I pray daily that you will continue in your work ,. reading scripture is now exciting ,Thanks Robert

    Reply
    1. Timothy J. Sakach Post author

      No I understand that it is possible for me to miss something every now and then. And I appreciate that fact that your gentle reminder did bring me back to the task at hand. Also, I think that Armstrong, right or wrong, was successful in making many people think. He lived a long and productive life, and many feel indebted to him. I am thankful to Yahua the Son and EL the Father for opening this door. As I said, I am learning with everyone else, and I look forward each week to the broadcast. I do not know ahead of time what each broadcast will bring.

      Reply
  2. Robert

    Hi Tim Just wondering why you didn’t comment on the questionss I asked regarding Dan and Elohim I look forward to your new book Robert

    Reply
    1. Timothy J. Sakach Post author

      I was starting to answer, but was interrupted. Sorry about that. Will get back to you on this later on today.

      Reply
  3. Robert

    Hi Tim thanks for your reply a couple of things I would like your opinion on. 1. Do you think that the tribe of Dan could be todays Germany? I know that this is close to what Herbert Armstrong thought and though I do not agree with a lot of his teaching I think he did a lot of research , and towards the end he relied on too many questionable people, as well as he was a follower of paul which didn’t help, but if Dan is supposed to go against Judah in the end it does seem possible your opinion is appreciated. 2. Does the saying Yahua Elohim mean that Yahua is the El of Israel ,the more I replace the names in the scriptures with their proper names the more meaningI get out of them, but once in a while I have a hard time with the word Elohim, I know it refers to the family of El but could it mean the first born or head of the family ? Thank you again for aall your help Robert

    Reply
    1. Timothy J. Sakach Post author

      Regarding Dan and the tribes future, there is good information in Fathers: The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Dan is omitted from the 144,000 because of his affiliation with the Satan, the adversaries. Therefore, Dan is destined to go through the great tribulation. The history of Dan can be traced through his “Mark” An aside is that my brother’s was named Daniel Mark, go figure. Dan’s mark can be found in Denmark, literally spelled “Danmark”, in the Danube River, and in the Dniester River. There is some thought that Dan also found a home in Ireland. If Dan is also is Germany, then Dan already went against Judah, and the prophecies in “Fathers” seem to fit that scenario. As far as what Herbert Armstrong felt about Dan, I think it mostly came from British Israelism, which was popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. British Israelsim group had it office across the street from Buckingham Palace. Don’t know if they are still at that location. From Armstrong’s book, Mystery of the Ages, it does not look like he did very much research at all. That was his last book. But it seems like it is a collection of his misunderstandings about everything he believed. Concerning “Yahua Elohim” I think Jeff Benner thought that it should “Yahua of Elohim.” However, Yahua created the Elohim and is its leader and chief. The Elohim is Yahua’s army. For example, Yahua of Hosts means Yahua of Armies. That Yahua is the EL of Israel shows the oneness between the Father EL and the Son. “He that has seen Me has seen the Father.” Not that Yahua was the Father, but rather that He was an expression of the Father and the Father could be identified through the Son. Thank you for your questions. Hope this helps. Tim Sakach

      Reply
  4. Robert

    Hi Timothy I have not commented or asked questions for quite a while as I actually spent a bit of time searching through various places to see if I could find any information that might make me question your teaching. I can now say that you should be very proud of what you are doing and I really believe you are being guided by the set apart spirit your insite and credaility seems unquestionable. I will have a few questions from time to time as I continue to study, but I ask only because I know your answers are truthfull and sincere. That being said I should say that I drive a lot and have found your cds which I purchased some time ago to be a great way to pass the time and I listen to the same cd 3 times in a row so three hours per cd as I find something new each time.I have done both sets many times and will continue, I also have downloaded all of the sessions and spend a lot of time on them it is so good to listen to someone who really has a grasp on things that I feel myself. I believe I have said before that I always felt there was something wrong with paul and company and now that I have ignored them for quite a while I am convinced . My sister who is a jehovah witness but I believe could be changed said to me if paul was so bad why didn’ t Yahua make it known and I said he did Yahuashua warned ,James warned’, Peter warned ,John warned in John 1 and first part of Rev, the difference between them and paul is they didn’t say bad things like paul did they were discreet but said enough to make it clear to anyone who had a clue. The more I study and listen to you it becomes clear that the truth in the word is displayed by it being repeated more than once by more than one profit, there are so many times I find myself saying; I red that somewhere before and then reakized that it had been not always in the exact words but with the same meaning, I always said there was a different story buried in all of those srories and I believe I am now getting very close to the truth thanks to you. I am going to end with a question, I read in one of the books of jasher that Abram didn,t burn the idols his father was making but cut them up his father then reported it to the king and him and his brother were thrown into a huge fire to be burned Abram was not burned but his brother was sort of like the story in Daniel, what are your thoughts? thanks again for all you do Robert

    Reply
    1. Timothy J. Sakach Post author

      I have not read all of the Book of Jasher. It is a historical document, but that could mean that , like our own national history, it may have been rewritten to please some leader. If I understand it correctly, the Book of Jubilees (“Little Genesis”) is afflicted by false entries by scribes and by translations from higher criticism “experts.” However, it may be closer to the truth about Abraham than Jasher. The Book of Jubilees is believed to have been written by Moses. He was pretty good at vetting his sources. Thank you for vetting me. If you have not yet done so, check the resources tab for a PDF document on Critiques of Paul from 200 AD to Present.

      Reply
  5. Pamela

    “During Christ’s lifetime, Paul would never have followed him.” Miguel de Unamuno “Paul shows us with what complete indifference the earthly life of Jesus was regarded by primary Christianity.”Albert Schweitzer “What is the significance for our faith and for our religious life, of the fact that the Gospel of Paul is different from the Gospel of Jesus?… The attitude which Paul himself takes up towards the Gospel of Jesus is that he does not repeat it in the words of Jesus, and does not appeal to its authority…. The fateful thing is that the Greek, the Catholic and the Protestant theologies all contain the Gospel of Paul in a form which does not continue the Gospel of Jesus, but displaces it.” The Mysticism of St. Paul (1931) “Paul has surely nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount…. The Sermon says: ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves’ (Matt.vii.15). This is generally understood as a warning against untrustworthy leaders in religion…. Does the verse express the experience of the primitive Church? Might it not be a warning against Paul and his followers?”Gerald Friedlander, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (1911) “When the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that there Paul is not dependent on Jesus. Jesus’ teaching is—to all intents and purposes—irrelevant for Paul.” Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (1926) Very interesting read! All Glory to The Master Yahua for opening our eyes to see. Shalom

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>