G
Guest
Guest
Paul warns of False Prophets – he calls them ‘false apostles’ (apparently having no sense of the irony). Christ had also warned of False Prophets, but He was talking about Paul.
The differences between Christ’s warnings and Paul’s are significant. Where Christ gives criteria for recognizing error (we would know a Tree by its fruit), Paul just issues blanket condemnations. And no spiritual perfection is beyond the reach of Paul’s attack. In one instance he says, quite uniquely within all of the Bible, that Satan can appear as an “Angel of Light”. Christ never said such a thing. The Prophets and the Patriarchs never said such a thing. And in all my readings in hagiography I have found numerous references to the very contrary – that a Saint with any experience at all is well able to discern between Angels and Demons entirely on the quality of their light – that Angels have a clarity and transparency in their Light, while demons are opaque. If Paul really knew anything Spiritual – if his knowledge was anything more than just a ‘natural’ glib cleverness – he certainly would have known the difference between an Angel and a Demon.
There were and are repercussions for Paul’s sweeping warnings against all things Heavenly and Divine. Paul may have had no greater end in sight then merely discrediting his Rivals – The True Apostolic Disciples and even the Real Apostles themselves. Paul would have had his followers believe that the True Disciples’ very appearance of Righteousness was in itself a valid indictment against them, along the lines of, “Sure they look good and sound good, but Satan can counterfeit all that!” What more could Satan want then to make us overly suspicious of all things Good, Righteous, Divine and Holy? And this is exactly what Paul accomplished! For instance, whoever takes Paul’s admonition seriously would never again give credence to any apparent “Angel of Light”. The Protestants and many Pauline Catholics take this to mean that Divine Revelation is effectively closed – that anything that manifests spiritually must certainly be dismissed as a suspected apparition of Satan. Therefore, in the face of all modern evidences for contemporary Divine Revelation, the Protestant, supported by Paul, is in fact more obdurately Atheistic in their negative response than even the Atheists themselves. Given enough ‘proof’ the Atheist will eventually believe, but the Protestant ‘believes’ that he is forbidden to ‘believe’. Satan, through Paul, has effectively closed their ears and blinded their eyes.
However, it is a testament to human gullibility that Paul’s readers make Paul the exception to his own rules. If Paul would have us believe that everyone who shoots off his mouth, making huge claims to Christ-like pretensions, is a “False Apostle”, then why in Heaven or Earth is Paul considered exempt from what should be the obvious conclusion? When everyone else was supposed to be a Devil, why should they have thought Paul a Saint? There is an answer – a very human answer. I’ve seen people stick with their Gurus even when the most blatant scandals began to unravel their schemes. Paul’s followers had an emotional investment in him. He was obviously charismatic and he demanded loyalty. And years of loyalty develop into emotional dependency. They were caught in his net. When asked to choose between their Cult Leader and the Real Apostles, they only needed an excuse to support their Cult Leader.
The differences between Christ’s warnings and Paul’s are significant. Where Christ gives criteria for recognizing error (we would know a Tree by its fruit), Paul just issues blanket condemnations. And no spiritual perfection is beyond the reach of Paul’s attack. In one instance he says, quite uniquely within all of the Bible, that Satan can appear as an “Angel of Light”. Christ never said such a thing. The Prophets and the Patriarchs never said such a thing. And in all my readings in hagiography I have found numerous references to the very contrary – that a Saint with any experience at all is well able to discern between Angels and Demons entirely on the quality of their light – that Angels have a clarity and transparency in their Light, while demons are opaque. If Paul really knew anything Spiritual – if his knowledge was anything more than just a ‘natural’ glib cleverness – he certainly would have known the difference between an Angel and a Demon.
There were and are repercussions for Paul’s sweeping warnings against all things Heavenly and Divine. Paul may have had no greater end in sight then merely discrediting his Rivals – The True Apostolic Disciples and even the Real Apostles themselves. Paul would have had his followers believe that the True Disciples’ very appearance of Righteousness was in itself a valid indictment against them, along the lines of, “Sure they look good and sound good, but Satan can counterfeit all that!” What more could Satan want then to make us overly suspicious of all things Good, Righteous, Divine and Holy? And this is exactly what Paul accomplished! For instance, whoever takes Paul’s admonition seriously would never again give credence to any apparent “Angel of Light”. The Protestants and many Pauline Catholics take this to mean that Divine Revelation is effectively closed – that anything that manifests spiritually must certainly be dismissed as a suspected apparition of Satan. Therefore, in the face of all modern evidences for contemporary Divine Revelation, the Protestant, supported by Paul, is in fact more obdurately Atheistic in their negative response than even the Atheists themselves. Given enough ‘proof’ the Atheist will eventually believe, but the Protestant ‘believes’ that he is forbidden to ‘believe’. Satan, through Paul, has effectively closed their ears and blinded their eyes.
However, it is a testament to human gullibility that Paul’s readers make Paul the exception to his own rules. If Paul would have us believe that everyone who shoots off his mouth, making huge claims to Christ-like pretensions, is a “False Apostle”, then why in Heaven or Earth is Paul considered exempt from what should be the obvious conclusion? When everyone else was supposed to be a Devil, why should they have thought Paul a Saint? There is an answer – a very human answer. I’ve seen people stick with their Gurus even when the most blatant scandals began to unravel their schemes. Paul’s followers had an emotional investment in him. He was obviously charismatic and he demanded loyalty. And years of loyalty develop into emotional dependency. They were caught in his net. When asked to choose between their Cult Leader and the Real Apostles, they only needed an excuse to support their Cult Leader.
