The year of Paul — apostle or pretender?

May 21, 6:58 PMPhoenix Spiritual Pathways ExaminerMaryEllen O'Brien

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Phoenix Spiritual Pathways Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

 June 2008 through June 2009 has been the Year of Paul, according to the Vatican.  I’d like to inject a radical thought into this bi-millennial hoopla. What if there’s something wrong with this picture?  What if it’s time to stop buying into Paul’s claims to apostleship and his most excellent campaign of self-promotion that has logged him into the New Testament and kept his name recognition right up there with the twelve true apostles.

I’m going to invoke my friend the Archangel Gabriel again.  Bear with me on this. If you can believe the hype Paul wrote about himself, then you can give me the benefit of the doubt for a few minutes.  I’ve spent several months researching a book that is on the one hand, a celebrity autobiography, and on the other hand a living spiritual memoir that claims to keep company with angels. I’d think it was a little crazy myself if I hadn’t seen and heard all that I have over the course of this research.  I’m knee deep in the writing, and much of it is so controversial and profound, I can’t help but give you some previews since I’m writing about spirituality.

The Year of Paul will wrap up before the book hits the stores, so I want to present a hint of what’s to come while’s Paul’s global party is still going on.  Yes, Gabriel is a party pooper on this count.  Remember Gabriel is the angel who announced to Mary that she would bear the son of God. Gabriel was guiding Mary and Joseph with messages and announcing Good News to Shepherds and assuring that the right people knew what was happening. (And by the way, Gabriel has some interesting light to shed on Joseph too.) But Gabriel is NOT happy with the interloper Paul, once known as Saul of Tarsus, whose murderous rage against the followers of Jesus turned into a party-switch that rocked the ancient world. Can’t beat ‘em? Don’t just join ‘em, come up with a fantastic story, and jump to the head of the line. In fact, create a religion!

That’s got Gabriel’s ire. Religion is the spawn of Satan according to the teachings and prophecies given . . . religion divides God’s children.  Spirituality and oneness with God is instead what all men and women should seek. 

Spirituality, not religion.  Paul was the creator of a new religion.  And Paul has no claim to apostleship — he is an impostor and it is time that he be seen as such. This is not new—it’s right there in the book of Acts.  But somehow the Pauline Marketing Machine managed to gloss over the objections of the twelve, and launch Paul into the limelight.  It is ironic that Paul’s claim to have seen the risen Christ, a requisite for being an apostle, “blinded” him for a period.  Because according to Gabriel, Paul’s leadership is the blind leading the blind. 

There is no 13^th apostle.  There were 12, and only 12.  The replacement for Judas was chosen as recounted in the Book of Acts, and the number stayed at 12.  The requirements for apostleship were that they had been chosen by Jesus as disciples and lived and ministered with him during his earthly ministry.  The apostles were chosen by Jesus during his life on earth, and they saw him in his risen, bodily appearances. Notice that Paul, while claiming to see the risen Jesus, claims it as a vision — and a solo one at that. Hard to dispute.  But it wasn’t a bodily appearance as with all the other disciples who saw Jesus during those days.  And notice too, that all the resurrection appearances came to two or more disciples. There are no accounts of solo apparitions.  There was always validation by two or more. 

Another thing you will notice is that the apostles preached Christ.  Paul spends a great deal of time preaching himself.  He may delve in a little self-deprecation, saying “I’m the least of the apostles,” but he doesn’t mean it.  The next thing you know he’s pounding his fist on the table and saying with ferocity that the people best remember exactly who they’re dealing with, they better do what he says, and remember — “Am I not an apostle?”  Well, according to the 12, that would be “no, you’re not.”  They denied his apostleship.  So what I write is not so radical after all.  It’s in agreement with those who lived and moved and had their being with Jesus. The twelve were humble men who had their faults, after all, Peter even denied Christ. And was forgiven. But none of them, had, for example, gone about threatening others and encouraging persecution of their fellow men who differed with them, to the point of murder, as Paul did before his convenient “vision.” It’s hard to imagine Jesus personally choosing an apostle with that resumé. It’s a bit of a deal-breaker. Forgiveness yes. Leadership?  No.  Remember even in the early church they had a long list of professions which, if they had been held by a person before their conversion, prevented them from leadership in the church. Those professions included military service and being an actor. Being a Pharisee and breathing threats and murder probably would have disqualified him even two or three centuries after Christ in the very church he created.

Paul never met Jesus, in the flesh, or in a vision.  He was never taken up into any heavens in yet another vision, as he claimed, but he did take up a few collections in his time.  Remember he also wrote that he should be freed from labor to preach, since he was, after all, an apostle, a VIP.

The truth is there were twelve, and only twelve apostles. They did not start a religion.  Paul deserves credit as a mastermind of a new religion and a marketing genius who got his own writings inserted into scripture.  But in reality he is more of a soul-mate to a religious creator and fellow “visionary” like Joseph Smith, who created Mormonism, and his own book of scripture, than to the twelve apostles of Jesus.

If this rankles, well — it’s all there in the Book of Acts, and in the Gospel accounts of who’s who.  And it’s not good to get on the wrong side of an Archangel who’s decided it’s time to “out” Paul, and that humanity has grown up enough now to face the truth.  True spirituality will naturally have faith — faith in Jesus, in God.  Not in religion.  It’s a hard habit to break, but it’s time. 

As for sainthood, Gabriel insists no man, no institution has the right to proclaim anyone a saint. That is for God alone. And the annals of church history proves that “sainthood” is as often a political appointment as a spiritual one. The list of saints is filled with cads and scoundrels as often as with the meek, who we're told will inherit the earth. Amazing what a little history will turn up.

For more on Paul from the upcoming book, Angels on My Stage: The Eddie Benitez Story, visit Eddie’s website at www.myspace.com/eddiebenitez and check out the blog section. (And music inspired from the heavens.) Eddie’s had his ear bent by Gabriel for a long time. “Conversations with Gabriel” comprises an entire section of the book.  An angelic eye-opener.

Imagine . . . no religion too