Femi Aribisala: The problem with Apostle Paul

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Pam says:

    This is by far the worst article I’ve ever read. So the writer thinks quoting recognized names is sufficient to persuade people to accept this demonstrably false ascertion? For every one of these experts he quoted, I can quote at least 10 equally formidable names who all believe Paul’s teachings promote and are supported by those of Christ. The low level of intellectual content in this work is gapingly evident: not a single one of Paul’s teaching was presented and contrasted with that of Christ. This is an outrage, that a man who blogs and is presumably learned could decide to write on such a controversial topic without making the slightest effort to sound credible. Maybe in his tiny little intellect he actually expects his readers to be bamboozled by the prominent names he quoted. But sorry Sir, just because some dozen people I respect said something, that’s not a reason in and of itself to accept it.

    • Tony says:

      Thanks Pam, I couldn’t have said it better myself. The only reason I read this article to the end was to see if one example was presented wherein Paul’s teachings contrasted that of Christ. Paul whether he met Jesus or not, was the tool Jesus used to bring salvation to the Gentiles. The Bible is God’s word and ALL in it are true. The only proof of Paul’s authenticity I need and indeed all true Christians need, is that all his books are contained in the bible. The Bible has survived centuries of persecution and Paul’s letters with it. I urge all who would perjure him to listen to this “(Paul) has fought the good fight,..run the good race, (and is currently facing his) crown of glory.” All bracketted words are my rendition.

      • Pam says:

        Amen Tony! Paul consistently referred to the gospel of Christ saying he is not ashamed of it. Look at this statement in his epistle to the Galatians: “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. But do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I could not be a servant of Christ. But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ,” (Gal. 1:6-12).

        • tom says:

          Upon my first encounter with this article I felt as though Mr. Aribisala was attempting to venture into the art of comic relief, but alas I discovered that he felt his position was serious and that his advice needed to be heeded.
          Mr. Aribisala made several fallacious arguments in his last article but this one is just an outright assault on intellectual criticism. One of the conditions for premise acceptability is acceptability by testimony by good authority. In philosophy an authority can only be good if it fulfills the following conditions:
          Firstly, the authority must possess proper credentials,
          Secondly, the credentials must be relevant to the issue at hand ,
          Thirdly, the authority’s opinion must be generally accepted in the field in the discussion,
          Fourthly, the authority must possess no illegitimate bias, and
          Lastly, the field must be capable in which empirical confirmation is possible.

          Sadly, none of the sixteen names listed above fulfills all the above recommendations and therefore has any authority within the field of conservative theology. What surprises me the most is that majority of the names mentioned where social commentators, philosophers and writers. Mr. Aribisala provides no exegesis on the differences in theology within the Gospels and the Pauline Letters.
          Many of the historical figures mentioned were non-Christian, an example is Thomas Jefferson who was a Christian Deist (no such a thing exists, Jefferson was just playing with words). Jefferson denies the deity of Christ only bestowing upon Jesus a status of a great moral and ethics teacher. He disliked the Pauline doctrines because they hinged on the deity of Jesus Christ and because Paul on serve occasions within his thirteen letters in the bible constantly referred to Jesus as God.
          Another denier of Christ’s divinity was Thomas Paine, one of the so called men of Enlightenment; he too disliked Paul’s doctrines for the same reason.
          Soren Kierkegaard, on the other hand was a Christian existentialist who believed that christian actions begin with the individual this however contrasts the God-centered theology within the Pauline doctrines. Another christian mentioned above is Bishop John S. Spong, however any serious christian would understand that the Episcopalian deny fundamental doctrines of Christianity such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the deity of Christ and the trintrian doctrines. It won’t come as a shock if their theology did come in conflict with Paul’s.
          Now looking at the premise from an existential point of view if Paul was preaching a different gospel won’t James, John, Andrew, Luke, Peter, Mary, Lazarus, Nathaniel, Matthew,and even Thomas the biggest doubter of Jesus’ resurrection have known and won’t the converts believe the word of the first disciple over a new convert who had killed one of their own. Mr. Aribisala fails to realize that the book of Acts records several meetings with Paul and Peter after Paul’s meeting with Christ and tells of how on new thing was added to each of them because they had both been preaching the same gospel.
          I just sit back and wonder if Mr. Aribisala would take a person if they referred friedrich nietzsche as a source for christian theological issues. This displays gross intellectual dishonesty on the path of Mr. Aribisala. I hope he refrains from such silly antics in future article because his research and citations are too sophomoric for adult readers, they may wow kids who do not have in-depth knowledge on these issues but hey sure don’t wow me.

  2. Eyeyo Okon says:

    This is rubbish article. Where is the evidence to prove it, a qoute from Jesus and Paul in the Bible that contradict? None.

  3. GOPharisee says:

    My take is: it makes absolutely no difference if Paul was acting on his own or not.
    What matters is that God allowed the Pauline books to remain in “HIS BOOK”

    God knows best.

    It is futile to imagine Christianity without the influence of Paul – it might never have become the religion it is: inspiring men to saintliness…..

    Bottom line:
    An ALMIGHTY God CAN vouchsafe his WORD otherwise he can hardly be said to be almighty!
    Jesus is Lord and he said in Luke 9:50: “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
    Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010): Yeshua said to them, “You shall not forbid, for whoever is not against you is for you.”.

    The disciples snubbed Paul, then allowed im into the fold! Were they too stupid to discern? and if they are, what hope do we have?


  4. busayo says:

    I am persuaded in God that u (like Apostle Paul u hate so much &always aim to discredit in ur writings) will preach this same gospel of Christ that u attack every sunday because God will have mercy on u and open ur eyes to the truth. God bless d brethren that have made excellent comments on this laughable piece.

  5. motunrayo says:

    Please, Mr Femi, it would please me to know your theory against paul, complete with references on how he contradicted Jesus. You know you are no different from Paul right? Both of you are supposed to be called into the ministry by God. I bet you never met Jesus also (obviously, LoL), but you claim to preach him. If I compile your teachings and see where it contradicts that of christ. Obviously that makes you a Heretic, an impostor, False disciple and a Con man. God bless you too.

Tell us what you think.