WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM ST. PAUL?1

Paul is like the man who comes into a court of law today to swear that everything he swore to yesterday was a lie.

Thomas Paine2

What follows was derived in part from New Testament Fallacies by Shmuel Golding of the Jerusalem Institute of Biblical Polemics, Jerusalem, Israel. All Bible citations are from the King James version of the Bible and are underlined for the convenience of the reader. Due to their length some of the cited passages are not reprinted here. Therefore, it is recommended that the reader have a copy of the King James version of the Bible handy for reference.

A perplexing but very legitimate question is, "Did such a person as Saul of Tarsus, A.K.A., the Apostle Paul, really exist"? Even though he states in Acts 26:4-5, "My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and at Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews", Paul, like Jesus and the twelve disciples, is never mentioned in any first century historical account such as those of Philo Judaeus and Flavius Josephus. Nor, for that matter, is there anywhere any mention by these important historians of the two hundred soldiers with seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen who, according to Acts 23:23-24, went to Caesarea with orders to bring Paul before governor Felix. Also, and perhaps the most puzzling, is that Paul is mentioned nowhere in any of the four canonical gospels although his writings were available when they were written. But let us set these facts aside for the moment and critically examine his biblical record.

First, consider the three accounts of Paul's conversion as recorded in Acts chapters 9, 22, and 26. There is an obvious contradiction between the first two accounts. In chapter 9 we are told that the men accompanying him heard the voice whereas in chapter 22 it states that they did not hear the voice. Another contradiction is the inconsistency in the manner in which Paul claims to have received his instructions. According to the first two accounts Jesus is rather tight lipped. He tells Paul to go into the city where instructions will be given to him. When testifying before King Agrippa, however, Paul embellishes the story. Here he says that Jesus actually instructed him in great detail right there on the spot (Acts 26:15-18). This passage bears all the earmarks of a forgery.

Something that has always puzzled me about the story of Paul's conversion is that after the shock of seeing the bright light and hearing the disembodied voice ask, "Why persecutest thou me?," his first comment was, "Who are you?" Now considering that the sole purpose of his mission was to persecute Jesus' followers, shouldn't it have been obvious?

Acts 13:38-39 ~ Paul announces with great authority, "Let it be known to you therefore, my brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you; by this Jesus every one who believes is set free from all those sins from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses" . Is he unaware that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and apostasy are identified as unforgivable sins? (See Mark 3:29 and Hebrews 6:4-6)  

Acts 20:35 ~ "I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Such a Jesus quote is found nowhere else in the Bible. So, is Paul just making it up as he goes along? That well might be the case because in II Corinthians 12:16 he openly admits to practicing deception.

Acts 23:3 ~ In a fit pique Paul openly curses the high priest. When reminded that it is unlawful to curse the rulers (Exodus 22:28), Paul replies, "I was not aware that I was talking to the high priest." This is hard to believe indeed when one considers that he had recently been an agent of the high priest and had in fact directly petitioned him for letters authorizing the arrest and persecution of the Christians in Damascus.

Acts 23:23-24 ~ "And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor". As noted above, there is no mention of such a military action by any first century historian.

Acts 26:22-23 ~ When giving his defense before Festus, Paul says, "Having, therefore, obtained help from God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." This statement is completely false! In the Old Testament nothing is said by any prophet or by Moses about Christ's sufferings, or that he would rise from the dead. There simply is nothing in the prophets or Moses about the anointed one, or Messiah, or Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth, suffering, or that he should rise from the dead being the first to do so. The Bible tells of several people who rose from the dead before Jesus allegedly did. These include the child resurrected by Elijah in 1 Kings 17:17,21,22, the son of a Shunammite in 11 Kings 4:32-35, the man who was raised by the bones of Elisha touching him in 11 Kings 13:21, Jairus's daughter in Matt. 9:18, 23-25, the son in Nain in Luke 7:11-15, and Lazareth in John 11:43,44. That's a total of six, prior to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Also, as to showing light to the gentiles, Jesus plainly says in Matthew 15:24, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel". So, where did Paul get this prophecy? He obviously just made the whole thing up.

Romans 1:3 ~ "Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh," says Paul. Although this statement agrees fully with the one made by Jesus in Revelation 22:16, it flies in the face of everything we are told in the gospels. In Matthew 1:20 and Luke 1:35 we learn that Mary was made pregnant with Jesus not by Joseph, who was of the Davidic line, but by the Holy Ghost. This creates a really big problem for Bible believers. First, although Joseph was of David's line, he was not Jesus' biological father. Second, the Holy Ghost is a spirit and spirits have neither flesh nor blood. Third, "according to the flesh" could not have been referring to Mary's flesh because she was not from David's line. According to the story, she was of the house of Aaron (Luke 1:5), a Levite. So, if the birth narratives are to be believed, Jesus did not come from the seed of David, and Paul told another big lie. If, on the other hand, Revelation 22:16 is true and Paul is right, the writers of Matthew and Luke lied.

Romans 1:16 ~ Paul announces that, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Salvation from sin through the blood of a man who died on a Roman cross is alien to everything in the Old Testament and to everything that is Jewish. When Christians claim that God made a new covenant with the Jews and sealed it with the blood of his son who is supposed to have died a sacrificial death one need simply tell them to read Jeremiah 31:29-30 , "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge." Note that this passage makes no provision for anyone to die for the sins of others. Everyone shall die for his or her own sins, it says. Therefore, Jesus' death is in no way a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The Jewish way to salvation is given in Ezekiel 18:27 where it says. "When a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness he will save his life." Notice that there is no mention of Jesus or a messiah.

Romans 1:26-27 ~ This passage constitutes the most overt attack on homosexuals to be found anywhere in the entire New Testament. It is the text frequently quoted by evangelical Christians to justify blatant homophobia.

Romans 2:11 ~ Paul claims that, "There is no respect of persons with God." This statement contradicts Deut. 7:6 where it states that God selected a chosen people from among all the people of the world. Also, God had respect of persons between Cain and Able (Gen. 4:4-5). In Malachi 1:2-3 God openly expresses his love for Esau and his hatred for Jacob, Esau's brother?

Romans 2:13 ~ According to Paul, "The doers of the law shall be justified." Later in 3-20 he contradicts this statement by saying, "Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Romans 3:4 ~ Paul says, "Every man is a liar!" That would include him, wouldn't it?

Romans 12:14 ~ Paul says, "Bless them that persecute you, bless and curse not." Although he preached this doctrine to others, Paul did not practice it. The truth is that he had a violent temper and held grudges. In I Corinthians 16:22 he openly cursed those who disagreed with him. He did it again in Galatians 1:9. These incidents show Paul to be a pious hypocrite. Another very revealing thing about Romans 12:14 is its close similarity to Matthew 5:10-12. Yet Paul never invokes Jesus nor the Sermon on the Mount. Why? Is it possible that he was unaware of that most renowned of all sermons?

Romans 14:1-8 ~ Here Paul says, "Let every man be persuaded in his own mind." In this chapter Paul outlines the code of law for Christian living according to which every one is free to do just as he or she pleases. Thus the law of the Old Testament is abandoned. This directly contradicts Jesus' unqualified endorsement of Old Testament law as recorded in Matthew 5:17-19.

Romans 15:29 ~ Regarding his planned visit to Rome, Paul said, "When I come unto you I will come in the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ." But when Paul did eventually go to Rome, he went as a prisoner under guard (Acts 28:16).

I Corinthians 1:17 ~ Paul here proclaims, "Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel". Back in verse 14 he says, "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius". Yet we are told in Mark 16:16 that in order to be saved one must be baptized. Was Paul unaware of this requirement?

I Corinthians 2:14 ~ Here Paul proclaims,"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Now, it is evident no one is born a spiritual person.  Everyone is born a natural person.  Natural man, according to learned men who know, has the Adamic nature, or human nature, or natural.  So, how can anyone be converted or born again and turn to God and become spiritual, if "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God?"  How can he know spiritual truths if, "neither can he know them?"  How could anyone turn to God if, "they are foolishness unto him?" How could all the biblical writers have been "inspired by God" to write scripture if no one receives or knows the things of God?

I Corinthians 5:1 ~ Paul scolds the Corinthians, "It is reported that there is fornication among you." Here he is rebuking his followers because they took Romans 14:1-8 seriously. Paul puts himself in the embarrassing position of having to turn to the very law which he had earlier abrogated. In verse 5 he even orders the execution of a man who took his dead father's wife. It might be of interest here to note that according to I John 3:9, "He who is born of God cannot sin." Therefore Paul's converts could not have been born again believers.

I Corinthians 6:5 ~ Paul asks, "Is it so that there is not one wise man among you?" Has he already forgotten his own exaltation back in 3:18? There he said, "If any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is but foolishness with God."

I Corinthians 6:7 ~ True to the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:1 (Do not judge) or Matthew 5:39 (Do not be opposed to evil), or Luke 6:30, (If robbed, do not ask for your goods back), Paul recommends that his followers not go to the law to settle their disputes. "It is preferable," he says, "to suffer yourself to be defrauded." Had these recommendations been observed it would have robbed the world of its civilization and created a society dominated by lawless thugs. What this passage actually shows is that the early Christians were indeed capable of defrauding one another. All of these rebukes from Paul only go to show that his doctrine of freedom from the law (Romans 8:2) and saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8) did nothing more than give men the license to sin.

I Corinthians 7:1 ~ Here Paul says, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." This edict violates Jewish law. In Genesis 1:28 God's command is, "Be fruitful and multiply." If, however, all of Paul's followers had obeyed him in this matter, Christianity surely would have died out early in the second century for a lack of followers.

I Corinthians 7:39 ~ "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth." This shows how little Paul knew of Jewish law for nowhere in the five books of Moses (the Pentateuch) can such a statement be found. According to Deut. 24:1-2 a man has the right to divorce his wife after which she is free to remarry.

I Corinthians 7:25 ~ Here Paul declares himself to be trustworthy. However in I Corinthians 9:20-22 he tells us that it's okay to intentionally deceive people in order to convert them to Christ.

I Corinthians 11:3 ~ This passage does two things. First, it unequivocally establishes the biblical concept of gender inequality - women are inferior to men. Second, by putting God above Jesus, it denies the Trinity.

I Corinthians 11:8-9 ~ Paul said,"For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" In other words, women are the property of men. As as property they have no rights.

I Corinthians 11:14 ~ "Doeth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him"? Not only are there no pictures of Jesus during the time he allegedly lived, there is no extra-biblical evidence that he ever lived at all. The portraits we do have of him are fanciful renditions dating from the middle ages. All of them show him with long hair.

I Corinthians 11:23-26 ~  Paul allegedly said, "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me.' After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." This brief reference to the "Lord's Supper" stands as the only passage in any of the authentic epistles which bears any resemblance to a the gospels. However, it sounds suspiciously like another late Christian forgery.

The betrayal of Jesus is an integral part of the passion story. In 1 Corinthians 11:23 Paul does indeed tell us that Jesus was betrayed, but he doesn’t say by whom. By implication it is of course Judas Iscariot. Yet Paul never mentions Judas anywhere in any of the authentic epistles. This is strange indeed considering that Paul claims to have been living in Jerusalem and serving as one of the chief priest's enforcers when all of these things allegedly took place. The trial of Jesus, also indispensable to the passion story and described in detail in all four of the canonical gospels, is never mentioned by Paul nor is the figure of Pontius Pilate. This, and other aspects of Paul’s ignorance, casts serious doubt on the credibility of the gospel stories.

I Corinthians 13:2 ~ "If I have not charity (love) then I am nothing." Paul showed very little charity toward those who disagreed with him. In Galatians 1:9 he says, "If anyone preach any other gospel, let him be accursed." So according to his own teachings he is nothing.

I Corinthians 13:11 ~ Paul says, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Obviously he was unaware of Luke 18:17 where Jesus clearly says, "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

I Corinthians 14:20 ~ "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." Paul says to his followers. Yet in Matthew 18:3 Jesus clearly says, "Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." 

I Corinthians 14:34-35 ~ "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church". What a male chauvinist pig! I Timothy 2:12 goes even further by forbidding women to teach or to exercise authority over men. See also I Timothy 2:15 below regarding the Paul's general contempt for women. 

I Corinthians 15:3-8 ~ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared [first] to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. This bare list stands as the earliest extant reference to a resurrection tradition. But there are big problems. First, Deut. 24:16 assures us that, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Second, Paul refers to Old Testament scripture that is non-existent. No one has yet been able to locate it. Third, this version contradicts that of the gospels on several important counts. In the schedule of appearances Matthew, Mark and John say that following his resurrection Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene who, in spite of her prominence in the gospel passion stories, Paul never mentions. According to Luke the resurrected Jesus first appeared to the two travelers on the road to Emmaus. The twelve, apparently referring to the apostles, had to include Judas Iscariot since his replacement was not officially appointed until after Jesus is said to have ascended to Heaven (Acts 1:26). So, are we to believe that Paul was not aware of the tragic and bizarre events surrounding Judas Iscariot's alleged betrayal and death? The only thing we can conclude is that either Paul is lying or the gospel accounts of Judas Iscariots' betrayal and death are bogus. For more information on this question see "Judas vs Peter" on this web site. Paul then adds, After that he [the resurrected Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred at once. This claim has been questioned by many the earliest of which there is any record is that of Thomas Paine. In his great work, "The Age of Reason," Paine points out that, "It is only Paul who says that [the resurrected] Jesus was seen by five hundred at once. It is not the five hundred who say it for themselves. Who were they? Could their testimony be relied upon? It is, therefore, the testimony of only one man, Paul." In verse 8 Paul makes what can only be described as an astounding revelation. He says, last of all, as one untimely born, he appeared to me. What are we to make of this? The word "appear" means to become visible - to be seen, but the alleged encounter on the road to Damascus was auditory, not visual. So, is Paul claiming to have actually seen the resurrected Jesus? If so, that is strange indeed considering that at the alleged time of the resurrection, around 30, Paul, or Saul as he was then known, was still a committed Jew living in Jerusalem happily persecuting Christians and other law breakers.

I Corinthians 15:22 ~ Paul tells us here that, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." If every man is to be put to death for his own sin, how can Paul justifiably say all must die for what Adam did and Jesus died for what all do?

According to Genesis 3:14-19, the only punishment meted out to Adam and Eve and all their descendants for the sin of disobeying God's order of not eating from the Tree of Knowledge, was: for men, working for a living; for women, bearing children with pain: and for The Snake and its descendants, crawling on their belly and eating dust. There is never any mention about all the other calamities that were to befall humanity, being linked in any way to what became known as the "original sin." Therefore, that asinine interpretation, contrived by religious vested interests when people began to question God's alleged judgment, mercy and love, is a blatant lie and an affront to the dignity of collective intelligence, which cannot look kindly on those who demand that their word be taken for it.

I Corinthians 15:50 ~ Paul assures his congregation that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Here Paul directly contradicts several New Testament passages. Luke 24:40-42 tells how after showing his disciples his hands and feet the resurrected Jesus ate fish. (See also Acts 10:39-41). Any time food is ingested waste is created, and bodily waste must be eliminated. So, did the resurrected Jesus go to the bathroom? Contrary to what Paul says it sounds like he was in a flesh-on-bones body to me. But there are other problems. His risen body also had to be strong enough to support cloths because Mary Magdalene mistook him for the gardener (John 20:15) and they didn't go around naked. 

II Corinthians 4:2 ~ Paul says, "We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." But, in 12:16 he says to the congregation at Corinth that, "I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile." 

II Corinthians 5:6-8 ~ Paul tells us, "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord". Here  Paul emphasizes his assertion (see I Corinthians 15:50) that a flesh and blood cannot be resurrected. Accordingly, Jesus' resurrection had to be in the form of a spirit.

II Corinthians 11:31 ~ Paul asserts, "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie." See above.

Galatians 1:11-12 ~ "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Yet back in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 he appears to be saying that he got it all from scripture, that it was handed on to him.

Galatians 1:18-19 ~ Paul recalls that, "After three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I not except James, the brother of the Lord." This contradicts the account given in Acts 9:27 where it says that Paul was brought to the apostles by Barnabas and was with them (the apostles) coming in and going out of Jerusalem.

Galatians 3:15-16 ~ Paul's pronouncements come from Genesis 17:19. But consider what Paul does. God promises Abraham that his wife, Sarah, will bear him a son to be named Isaac. God then says he will establish an everlasting covenant with Isaac and with Isaac's seed after him. Paul claims that seed refers to Jesus. This amounts to nothing more than deceitful trickery. As used in Genesis, the word "seed" is a collective noun which implies the plural. It is referring not to an individual such as Jesus but to the Jewish people who will be the descendants, or seed, of Isaac. The process of shamelessly manipulating certain Old Testament passages so that they appear to be referring to Jesus is a technique widely used in Christian apologetics. It is easily recognized and refuted.

Galatians 3:28 ~ Paul declares men and women to be equal- "Ye are all one in Christ Jesus," whereas in I Corinthians 14:34-35 he places women in a decidedly inferior position.

Galatians 4:4 ~ Paul says, "God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law." Jesus was not born according to the law. His real father was the Holy Ghost as noted above. Therefore Jesus was born of an adulterous union. He was, in effect, a bastard. In that regard, see Exodus 20:14 and Deut. 23:2.

Galatians 5:12 ~ In a fit of pique Paul declares, "I wish those who unsettled you would castrate themselves". Is he speaking on behalf of God here?

Galatians 6:2 ~ "Bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ," proclaims Paul. Yet just below that in verse 5 he reverses himself when he says, "For every man shall bear his own burden."

Ephesians 5:21 ~ "Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife". Thus flies in the face of the ongoing struggle for women's rights as we know it today. Later on in verse 25 Paul tell husbands to love their wives. Now, this may be well and good, but the inequality of women, as established in verse 21, cannot be denied.

Ephesians 6:9 ~ "Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ". This statement stands as an unabashed endorsement of human slavery. Further on in verse 9, Paul tires to sugar cote his slavery endorsement by suggesting to the slave master that he be kind to his slaves. Be this as it may, a slave is still a slave with no control over his or her life or destiny. 

Philippians 1:18 ~ Paul says, "Whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached I therein do rejoice." So Paul is here saying that it is okay to be deceitful so long as the message gets out. Here again II Corinthians 4:2 and 12:16 are contradicted (See above.)

Philippians 3:2 ~ Paul says, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of concision." Concision means any mutilation of the flesh. This, as it turns out, is a timely warning in view of Leviticus 22:20, where the Lord tells Moses that regarding sacrifices, "Whatsoever hath a blemish is not acceptable." But Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2:21), and this amounts to a mutilation of the flesh, a concision. Therefore Jesus was unacceptable according to Jewish law.

Philippians 3:10 ~ Paul declares with great emotion, "All I care for is to know Christ, to express the power of his resurrection, to share in his suffering." Yet when he returns to Jerusalem it is merely to visit Peter. He never expresses the slightest desire to see Bethlehem, Jesus' birthplace, Nazareth, his home town, the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he is supposed to have held the fabled Last Supper, nor Calvary where the ultimate sacrifice was allegedly made. Most astonishing of all, however, is that there is not one hint of a pilgrimage to the tomb in which the resurrection, the center piece of Paul's theology, allegedly occurred.

Colossians 3:18 ~ "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them". This is a repeat of Ephesians 5:21 as given above. The same applies.

I Thessalonians 4:15-17 ~ The Apostle Paul told a whopper when he assured the congregation that the second coming of Jesus was very near. He said, "For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.

II Thessalonians 2:9 ~ It says, "Even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders." But in Matthew 28:18 we learn that, "All power in heaven and in earth was given unto Jesus." Again in Luke 21:27 we read that, "Jesus is coming with power and great glory." Now if all power belongs to Satan yet Jesus is the one with all of the power, doesn't that mean that Jesus and Satan are one and the same?

The Pastorals, (I & II Timothy and Titus) are recognized forgeries written in the mid-second century long after Paul's death. In spite of this widely accepted historical fact most versions of the Bible present them as epistles of Paul. So, let us treat them as such.

I Timothy 1:19-20 ~ Paul says, "Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme". So, here Paul sends people to hell- or does he?  Hymenaeus shows up again in 2 Tim. 2:17 apparently alive and well. 

I Timothy 2:3-4 ~ For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. This pronouncement contradicts Romans 9:6-29 where Paul tells us that salvation is predestinated because God selected some persons for salvation and some for damnation even before they were born, and that this decision is irreversible regardless of how they live their lives. See also the section titled "Salvation" in Are the Gospels True? on this web site.

I Timothy 2:9 ~ Here Paul proceeds to tell women how not to dress while advocating no such restrictions for men. This passage along with the next three verses clearly demonstrate Paul's contempt for women as he systematically relegates them to the status of chattel property of men.

I Timothy 2:11-14 ~ Women are herby stripped of all human rights and reduced to nothing more than the property of their husbands.

I Timothy 2:15 ~ "Despite their many shortcomings, women can be saved through childbearing if they continue in faith, charity, and holiness with sobriety." Although degrading, this seems to offer women access to salvation. But they shouldn't get their hopes up because in I Corinthians 7:8 Paul announces that it is better to remain unmarried. So if a woman doesn't have children, she is denied salvation. But she can't have children legally unless she is married. If she elects to have children out of wedlock, she will be declared a fornicator and thus denied salvation again (I Corinthians 6:9). For women this amounts to a no-win situation, a catch 22.

I Timothy 5:8 ~ Paul warns us that "If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." This directly contradicts Matthew 19:29 where Jesus tells Peter and the other disciples, "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life".

2 Timothy 2:17 ~ Paul Says. "And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already". Here Hymenaeus, a real trouble maker, shows up again with a different cohort, Philetus. And look what they are saying. In that regard, Paul apparently knew nothing of the crucifixion and the resurrection, the two most important events of the entire Christian.

So after reading all of this would you buy a used car from the likes of Saint Paul? The writer of James 1:8 must have had Paul in mind when he wrote, "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways."

For more information on Paul see The Pauline Epistles and The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance on this website.

2  The Age of Reason.

3 Doherty, Earl; Challenging the Verdict; page 136.