Femi Aribisala: The problem with Apostle Paul

Femi Aribisala


“Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught….”

Jesus says his sheep know his voice and follow him: “They will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” (John 10:5).  Paul’s voice is the voice of a stranger.  When you point this out to Pauline Christians, they lose all rationality and become abusive.  Jesus says: “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.” (Matthew 18:16).  Listen to these eminent bible scholars.  Surely, they are not all as ignorant and unspiritual as I am.

False disciple

William Wrede, famous German Lutheran theologist, observes in his book “Paul:” “The moral majesty of Jesus, his purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for Paul’s Christology nothing whatever.  The name ‘disciple of Jesus’ has little applicability to Paul.  Jesus or Paul: this alternative characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the present day.”

In the book “Christ or Paul?” the Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore writes: “Let the reader contrast the true Christian standard with that of Paul and he will see the terrible betrayal of all that the Master taught.  For the surest way to betray a great Teacher is to misrepresent his message.  That is what Paul and his followers did, and because the Church has followed Paul in his error it has failed lamentably to redeem the world.  If we apply to Paul the test ‘by their fruits ye shall know them’ it is abundantly clear that he was a false prophet.”

Soren Kierkegaard, Danish Christian philosopher and theologian, observes in “The Journals:” “What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down; making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ.”  Miguel de Unamuno, Spanish essayist, novelist and playwright, writes in “The Agony of Christianity:” “During Christ’s lifetime, Paul would never have followed (Jesus).”

Dubious gospel

Frederick Engels, German philosopher and father of Marxist theory, writes in “On the History of Early Christianity:” “Attempts have been made to conceive all the messages of John’s Revelation/Apocalypse as directed against Paul, the false Apostle. The so-called Epistles of Paul are not only extremely doubtful but also totally contradictory.”

Mahatma Gandhi, the renowned Indian prophet of nonviolence, in an essay titled “Discussion on Fellowship”, writes: “I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus and the Letters of Paul.  Paul’s Letters are a graft on Christ’s teachings, Paul’s own gloss apart from Christ’s own experience.”

Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey, USA, writes in his book, “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism:” “Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference.”  Rudolf Bultman, a theologian, writes in his “Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul:” “It is most obvious that Paul does not appeal to the words of the Lord in support of his views.  When the essentially Pauline conceptions are considered, it is clear that Paul is not dependent on Jesus.  Jesus’ teaching is- to all intents and purposes- irrelevant for Paul.”


Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence; writes in his “Letter to William Short:” “Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

H.G. Wells, famous English science-fiction writer, observes in “The Outline of History:” “It is equally a fact in history that St. Paul and his successors added to or completed or imposed upon or substituted another doctrine for- as you may prefer to think-  the plain and profoundly revolutionary teachings of Jesus by expounding a subtle and complex theory of salvation, a salvation which could be attained very largely by belief and formalities, without any serious disturbance of the believer’s ordinary habits and occupations.”

Gene Savoy, American theologian and clergyman, declares in his “The Essaei Document:” “Paul’s Christianity is another matter. He taught a different kind of theology than that shared by the original disciples who were schooled under Jesus.  Paul was the father of Pagan Christianity; a movement based on a concept completely foreign to Jesus.  The teachings of Jesus the Messiah were overshadowed by the teachings of Paul.”

Thomas Cosette, a Christian scholar, writes in “Hebrew Prophecies of the Coming of Paul:” “This man Paul hijacked what is called the church. But he can only keep those who do not love the truth. Those who still have conscience and will compare his teaching and his testimony to Y’shva’s and the prophets without granting Paul’s testimony (is) the Word of God but (is) just another man’s testimony in light of Jesus’ teachings. Then they will discover that Paul usurps the truth.”

Patrick Henry writes in “New Directions in New Testament Study:” “There remains in the popular mind a strong suspicion that Paul corrupted Christianity (or even founded a different religion). Paul imported into the Christian community a form of religion characteristic of the ‘mysteries’ religious movements of initiation into secret rites and esoteric knowledge.”


Walter Bauer, an eminent German theologian and scholar of the development of the early Christian churches, writes in his “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity:” “If one may be allowed to speak rather pointedly the Apostle Paul was the only Arch-Heretic known to the apostolic age.”

Michael Baigent, author and speculative theorist declares in “The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception:” “Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he’d begun to regard as his ‘Savior.’ He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus’ teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimize it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus.”

Paul Johnson, English journalist, historian and author, writes in “A History of Christianity:” “Writings by Christian Jews of the decade of the 50′s AD present Paul as the Antichrist and the prime heretic. The Christology of Paul, which later became the substance of the universal Christian faith, was predicated by an external personage whom many members of the Jerusalem Church absolutely did not recognize as an Apostle.”

The last word belongs to Thomas Paine, one of the founding fathers of the United States.  He writes in “The Age of Reason:” “Paul’s writing is no better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told.”

Don’t just take Paul’s authenticity for granted because he happens to be in the bible.  Don’t just accept something because it is preached by your pastor in your church.  Find out the truth for yourself.  Your salvation depends on it.


Femi Aribisala blogs at FemiAribisala.com


Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.

Follow @ynaija on Twitter



  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?


  • 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.

  • 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.