ST. PAUL FRAUD I

A Critical Examination
of the Life of St. Paul
by Nicolas Antoine Boulanger, 1893
The Roman Church today adopts as authentic and divinely inspired many books of the Bible, absolutely rejected by the Protestants. How is it possible to decide which is the party that deceives itself? - N. A. Boulanger
Founder of Christianity
It is by no means surprising that the heads of the Christian church, have at all times held up St. Paul, as a man divinely inspired; have for a distinction entitled him, the Apostle, have inculcated for his writings the most profound veneration, and have caused them to be considered, as the oracles of the Holy Ghost. This Apostle was evidently the architect of the church. We may consider him especially as the founder of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It is to him that are owing the prerogatives, privileges, divine rights and pretenses of the clergy. St. Paul established bishops, assigned them their rights, and in his writings laid the foundations of that spiritual power, which has since become so formidable to temporal authority.

Nevertheless, if we read the gospels with the slightest attention, we shall find that Jesus has no where spoken of this hierarchy or power, nor of the prerogatives of the clergy; on the contrary, we see him' incessantly preaching to his apostles, equality, humility and poverty.

A Clever Man
These changes effected by Paul are sufficient to make us acquainted with his secret policy. He endeavored apparently to make himself the spiritual and temporal head of the churches, which he had by his labors, founded among the Gentiles, with whom, as we have shown, he had more success than among the Jews. It was to gain them over that he became all things to all men, that he dispensed them, as we have said, from the most essential ordinances of the Mosaic law. In short he had the secret of insinuating himself, into the minds of idolators, whom he sometimes took by surprise accommodating himself to their capacities, and giving them as he himself has said, sometimes milk, and at others, solid food. As we have already sufficiently shown, Paul after his successes with the Gentiles, gave himself little trouble respecting the converted Jews, or with his elder brethren in the apostle-ship; and openly declared himself against the Mosaic law. As we have seen be went himself to Jerusalem, to solicit a decree, to dispense the Gentiles from the rite of circumcision; this he had much at heart, feeling how necessary this indulgence was, in order to secure his new subjects. Thus it was he who enlarged the breach, though small in its origin, which separated the Jews from the Christians or Nazarenes. This conduct naturally displeased the rest of the apostles, who appeared, even after the council, always attached to the Jewish ordinances, but who on this occasion, found themselves compelled to cede to Paul, or at least to temporize with a man who had gained an ascendancy over them.

Paul and the Jews
On the other side, how can these prophecies made by Jews and addressed to Jews, serve as proofs of the doctrine of St. Paul, who had evidently formed the design of altering, or even of destroying, the Jewish religion, in order to raise a new system on its ruins? Such being the state of things, what real connection, or what relation, can there be between the religious system of the Jews, and that of St. Paul?

The God that you preach is not the God of our fathers: you say that Christ is his son; but we know that God has no son. You pretend that this son, whom we have put to death as a false prophet, has risen from the dead, but Moses has not spoken of the resurrection; thus your new God and your dogmas are contrary to our law, and consequently we ought to hold them in abhorrence." In short these same Jews might have said to St. Paul: "You deceive yourself in saying, that you are the disciple of Jesus, your Jesus was a Jew, during the during the whole of his life he was circumcised, he conformed himself to all the legal ordinances; he often protested that he came to accomplish, and not to abolish the law; whilst you in contempt of the protestations of the Master, whose Apostle you say you are, take the liberty of changing this holy law, of decrying it, of dispensing with its most essential ordinances." Moreover the conversion of St. Paul strangely weakens the proof that the Christian religion draws from the miracles of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. According to the evangelists themselves the Jews were not at all convinced by these miracles.

Paul the Pagan
The Acts of the Apostles, adopted by the Ebionites or Nazarenes, relate amongst other things, that, "Paul was originally a Pagan, that he came to Jerusalem where he dwelt for some time; that being desirous of marrying the daughter of the High Priest he became a proselyte, and was circumcised; but not being able to obtain the woman he desired, he quarreled with the Jews, began to write against the circumcision, against the observation of the Sabbath, and against legal ordinances."

Who Wrote the Gospels?
Faustus, the Manichean, said on the subject of the gospels, "that they had been composed a long time after the Apostles, by some obscure individuals, who fearing that faith would not be given to histories of facts with which they must have been unacquainted, published under the name of the Apostles their own writings, so filled with mistakes and discordant relations and opinions, that we can find in them neither connection nor agreement with themselves."

St. Luke
It is thus that the author of the Acts of the Apostles, only speaks, as it were, of his master, of St. Paul, and glances very slightly over the Acts of the Apostles of the contrary party. The same author (St. Luke) is presumed to have composed his gospel from the notes furnished him by St. Paul, though he had neither known nor seen Jesus Christ.

Spurious Accounts (Acts & Epistles)
It is in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, that we find the details of his life and the system of his doctrine; but, how can we be certain of the authenticity of these works, whilst we see many of the first Christians doubt and reject them as apocryphal? We find, in fact, that from the earliest period of the church, entire sects of Christians, who believed that many of the Epistles published under the name of this Apostle, were not really his. The Marcionites were confident that the gospels were filled with falsehood, and Marcion, their head, pretended that his gospel was the only true one. The Manicheans, who formed a very numerous sect at the commencement of Christianity, rejected as false, all the New Testament, and produced other writings, quite different, which they gave as authentic. The Corinthians, as well as the Marcionites, did not admit the Acts of the Apostles. The Encratites and the Severians did not adopt either the Acts or the Epistles of St. Paul. St. John Chrysostom in a homily, which he has made upon the Acts, says, that in his time (that is to say, towards the end of the fourth century) many men were ignorant not only of the name of the author, or of the collector of these Acts, but even did not know this work. The Valentinians, as well as many other sects of Christians accused our scriptures of being filled with errors, imperfections, and contradictions, and of being insufficient without the assistance of traditions; this is a fact that is attested to us by St. Irenæus. The Ebionites or Nazarenes, who, as we shall soon see, were the first Christians, rejected all the Epistles of St. Paul, and regarded him as an impostor and hypocrite.

Paul's Embroidery
It is proper to remark in this place that these Ebionites, or first Christians, believed that Jesus was but a man, as much on the side of his father as on that of his mother, that is to say, the son of Joseph and Mary; but that he was a wise, just, and excellent person, thus meriting the appellation of the son of God, because of his holy life and good qualities whence we see that the first Christians were as well as the first Apostles, true Socinians. But St. Paul to give, without doubt, more luster to his ministry, and his adherents after him, willing to extol the holiness of their religion, made a God of Jesus, a dogma which it is no more permitted to doubt, especially since the partizans of Paul have become more numerous, and stronger than those of St. Peter and the other Nazarenes, or Jewish founders of primitive Christianity, which thus totally changed its face as to its capital dogmas.

Bishop Irenaeus
Papias, who was the master of St. Irenæus, was, in the opinion of Eusebius himself, a man of weak mind, a fabulous author, who had contributed to lead many men into error, and amongst others St. Irenæus who was his disciple, whom Eusebius regards as a very credulous man, though he was the first ecclesiastical historian of note. It is not surprising that those who have followed such guides have fallen into error.

Church Fathers, No Credibility
Is it possible to believe the traditions of such a man as St. Jerome, who in his life of St. Anthony, assures us that this holy man had a conference with satyrs with goats feet? Do we not justly doubt the sincerity of St. Augustine, when he says, "that he had seen a nation composed of men, who had eyes in the middle of their stomachs?" Are such authors more entitled to credit, than those of Robinson Crusoe, and of the Thousand and One Nights? Supposing even that at the commencement of Christianity, there had been authentic books in which the actions and the discourses of Jesus Christ and his Apostles had been faithfully related, should we be justified in supposing that they have been handed down to us such as they were originally? Prior to the invention of printing, it was doubtless much easier to impose upon the public than it is now, and notwithstanding, we see that the Press gives currency to innumerable falsehoods. The spirit of party causes every thing to be adopted that is useful to its own cause. That granted, how easy was it for the heads of the Church, who were once the only guardians of the holy books, either from pious fraud, or a determined wish to deceive, to insert falsehoods and articles of faith, in the books entrusted to their care.

Spurious Authentication
I have thus far shown that nothing was more destitute of proof than the authenticity of the books which contain the life and writings of St. Paul. I have shown that the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul, were rejected by some Christian sects which subsisted from the earliest times of the church.

Thus each doctor had the power of making such holy books as he pleased, and when, under Constantine, the Christians saw themselves supported by the Emperor, their chiefs were able to accept, and cause to be accepted as authentic, and of rejecting as apocryphal, such books as suited their interest, or did not agree with the prevailing doctrine. But were we even sure of the authenticity of the books, which the church of this day adopts, we are nevertheless, without any other guarantee of the authority of the scriptures than the books themselves. Is there a history which has the right to prove itself by itself? Can we rely upon witnesses who give no other proof of what they advance than their own words? Yet the first Christians have rendered themselves famous by

Rome and St. Peter Fiction
After what has been said, we ought naturally to regard St. Paul as the true founder of the pontifical see of Rome. Nevertheless certain traditions, useful to the Roman Pontiffs, oblige us to believe that it was St. Peter, who established his throne in the capital of the world; the popes have thought, that their interests required, that they should pass for the authorized successors of this Prince of the Apostles, to whom Christ himself according to the Gospel, granted immense rights and privileges. These traditions then make St. Peter travel to Rome, prior to St. Paul, and only regard the latter as the subaltern associate in the Apostolic labors of the former. Nevertheless some critics have ventured to doubt of the reality of St. Peter's voyage to Italy, and his foundation of the first see in the world, some authors otherwise very orthodox, without regarding the interests of the Pope, or respect for the traditions which favor them, have treated those pretensions as chimeras: as to the heretics, the sworn enemies of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, they have asserted, that the voyage of St. Peter to Rome was a fable invented by the supporters and partizans, with a design to exalt his authority.

Secondly, St. Paul who was at Rome at the same time, that Peter was supposed to have been there, never once mentions this Prince of the Apostles, in the epistles to the faithful at different places, while he speaks to them of many other disciples of much less consideration than his illustrious colleague: we ought piously to suppose that if St. Peter had really established the faith at Rome, the Apostle of the Gentiles would have been too equitable to ravish from him the glory, that must have accrued to him from so fine a conquest.

Spurious Holy Ghost
There is no mention made of the Holy Ghost in the Old Testament; there is mention made of the spirit of the Lord, which possessed, or resided in the prophets, and other holy personages charged with speaking to the Jewish people; but in no place of the Old Testament is the Holy Ghost announced as a being distinct from the Divinity, it is only in the New Testament that we find this metaphysical being deified, or this divine breath personified. In fact it is only in the history of Jesus Christ, that the Holy Ghost begins to perform, a part; we there find him commissioned to overshadow Mary, and produce the savior of the world, who was, as we are told, begotten by the operation of the Holy Ghost.
. . .
More on the St. Paul Deception
The man who invented it would be greater and more astonishing than its hero – J. J. Rousseau (on Paul)
St. Paul
One man has done more to damage the cause and obscure the origins of religion than any other. He is Paul. Paul of Tarsus (some say Tax Collector for the Romans and others a tentmaker); the infamous St. Paul, the originator of Pauline Christianity. He pirated the aspects he built into Judean Christianity and ‘created’ (for want of more damning adjectives) what can only be considered in the light of today‘s knowledge and understanding, a fairy tale. He deliberately ignored and discredited the truth about the cornerstone of Christianity, the militant Jesus who was an adherent of the Enochian Way, an Essene, a Son of Light, and created in its stead a mild mannered, meek man who performed a plethora of improbable ‘miracles’. All of which are based upon the distortion of mundane everyday events. Having done all this, he mixed in a goodly proportion of the existing Roman Mithraic mystical belief system, and then proceeded to sell his construct to the Roman world. The Romans would never have tolerated Christianity had Jesus been portrayed as the militant he was, working against the oppressive Roman yoke before his supposed death - Peter Smith (Religion As Myth)

Had Paul and his cohorts, together with the church leaders who followed in their footsteps, destroyed all earlier reference material, they might have succeeded in their attempt to prove that their version of the ‘truth’ was the only extant version - Peter Smith (Religion As Myth)

The religious teaching presented in Paul’s Epistles is fundamentally different from what research has recognized as being authentic sayings of Jesus…What we know as Christianity today is not the teaching contained in these authentic sayings; it is the theology disseminated by Paul and the doctorers of his Epistles - Elmer H Gruber (The Original Jesus)

Either this man (Paul) was never a Rabbinic Jew at all, or he has quite forgotten what Rabbinic Judaism was and is - Thomas Whittaker (The Origins of Christianity with an Outline of Van Manen's Analysis of the Pauline Literature)

The only hypothesis that satisfactorily explains the peculiar agreement in the style of the whole collection, and at the same time the differences not merely between one Epistle and another, but between different parts of the same Epistle, is that which has been set forth…namely, that none were written by the Apostle Paul, but that all proceeded from one circle or "school” - Thomas Whittaker (The Origins of Christianity with An Outline of Van Manen's Analysis of the Pauline Literature)

Paul the Imposter
The Marcionists (a Christian sect) assumed that the evangelists were filled with falsities. The Manicheans, who formed a very numerous sect at the commencement of Christianity, rejected as false all the New Testament, and showed other writings quite different that they gave for authentic. The Cerinthians, like the Marcionists, admitted not the Acts of the Apostles. The Encratites, and the Sévénians, adopted neither the Acts nor the Epistles of Paul. Chrysostom, in a homily which he made upon the Acts of the Apostles, says that in his time, about the year 400, many people knew nothing either of the author or of the book. St. Irene, who lived before that time, reports that the Valentinians, like several other sects of Christians, accused the Scriptures of being filled with imperfections, errors and contradictions. The Ebionites, or Nazarines, who were the first Christians, rejected all the Epistles of Paul and regarded him as an impostor. They report, among other things, that he was originally a pagan, that he came to Jerusalem, where he lived some time – Boulanger (Life of Paul)

Paul's Agenda
Paul, like Simon, was an internationalist who wanted to liberate Christianity from any baggage it had inherited from Jewish Literalism...However, although Paul wants to dump Judaism, he doesn't completely condemn it, as Simon did...Paul's internationalist Christianity flourished among Gentiles, but was largely unacceptable to Jews - Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (Jesus and the Lost Goddess)

Pauline Invention
...most of what is now accepted as orthodox Christian doctrine was developed from Paul’s teaching, rather than from that of Jesus. The New Testament Gospels concentrate on the story of Jesus’ life – his birth, baptism, day to day travel, miracles, death, etc, – but really tell us very little of His teachings, apart from a few short sermons, parables, conversations and arguments. Paul’s letters, however, are packed full of his own personal beliefs – his ideology, his philosophy, and his theology – R. A. Anderson (Church of God, or Temple of Satan)

For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?- (Romans 3:7)

St. Paul must have been well acquainted with some ancient copy of the Ritual of Egypt, as expressed here in the almost identical words as found there – Albert Churchward (Origins and Evolution of Religion)

The religious teaching presented in Paul’s Epistles is fundamentally different from what research has recognized as being authentic sayings of Jesus…What we know as Christianity today is not the teaching contained in these authentic sayings; it is the theology disseminated by Paul and the doctorers of his Epistles - Elmer H Gruber (The Original Jesus)

...the Pauline epistles were as yet completely unknown in the first century AD, that in particular the existence of the Epistle to the Romans is not testified to before the middle of the second century, must speak seriously against Paul's authorship, and is evidence that those epistles cannot be accepted as the primary source of the Pauline doctrines - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)

The possibility of the so-called Pauline epistles having been the work of later theologians, and of having been christened in the name of Paul...is therefore by no means excluded; especially when we consider how exuberantly literary falsifications and "pious frauds" flourished in the first century, and at other times also, in the interests of the Christian church - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)

Of the works of the Old Testament neither the Psalms, nor the proverbs, nor the so-called Preacher, nor the Book of Wisdom, can be connected with the historical kings David or Solomon, whose names they bear, and the prophet Daniel is just such a fictitious personality as the Enoch and the Ezra of the Apocalypses known under their names - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)

…the so-called Five Books of Moses are the literary product of an age much later than the one in which Moses is supposed to have lived - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)

Paul Knew Jesus Never Existed
If Jesus had been on earth, he wouldn't have been a priest - (Hebrews 8:4)

Unlike the New Testament gospels, written some 50-100 years later, Paul does not teach a quasi-historical narrative about Jesus. Paul's Jesus is a clearly mythical figure who does not inhabit any particular time or place - Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (Jesus and the Lost Gospels)

Paul in writing his many letters does not mention even one of the parables of Jesus. Paul does not use the actual teaching of Jesus at all, but rather spreads his own ideas and philosophy. Considering Paul's Hebrew background, it is not surprising that he characterized all people as subject to the wrath of God - A. D. Horn (Humanity's Extraterrestrial Origins)

Thus Paul as a human teacher made out of joyous tidings his threatening tidings and implied that only he could show the path to salvation...In no other religion do we find such cultivation of the fear of death as in Pauline Christianity - Holger Kersten (Lutheran Theologian)

Plagiarizing the Pagans
Paul also introduced an important change to Jesus’ title of Christ (Christos). The Gospels tell us that his immediate followers called him “the Christ” (ho Christos), showing they regarded him as the prophesized Messiah. Paul dropped the definite article, calling Jesus simply Christos, turning it into a name – Jesus Christ – probably to emphasize his uniqueness and distance him further from the Jewish interpretation of his mission…Many authorities argue that…Paul was influenced by the pagan mystery cults of Rome, and that he freely borrowed concepts from them - Picknett and Prince (Masks of Christ)

Paul Known Only From New Testament
The sources of information about Paul are contained almost exclusively in the New Testament. They are, first, the Pauline Epistles, and, second the Book of Acts – J. Gresham Machen (The Origin of Paul’s Religion)
 
A Roman Citizen
The social position of Paul’s family in Tarsus must not be regarded as very humble;. for according to the Book of Acts not only Paul himself, but his father before him, possessed the Roman citizenship, which in the provinces was still in the first century a highly prized -privilege from which the great masses of the people were excluded – J. Gresham Machen (The Origin of Paul’s Religion)
 
Paul the Palestinian Hebrew
In 2 Cor. xi. 22, Paul is declared to be a “Hebrew” and in Phil. iii. 5 he appears as a “Hebrew of Hebrews.” The word ”Hebrew” in these passages cannot indicate merely Israelitish descent or general adherence to the Jews religion. If it did so it would be a meaningless repetition of the other terms used in the same passages. Obviously it is used in some narrower sense. The key to its meaning is found in Acts vi. 1, where, within Judaism, the “Hellenists” are distinguished from the “Hebrews” the Hellenists being the Jews of the Dispersion who spoke Greek, and the Hebrews the Jews of Palestine who spoke Aramaic. In Phil. iii. 5, therefore, Paul declares that he was an Aramaic-speaking Jew and descended from Aramaic speaking Jews ; Aramaic was used in his boyhood home, and the Palestinian tradition was preserved. This testimony is not contrary to what was said above about Paul s use of the Greek language not improbably Paul used both Aramaic and Greek in childhood but it does contradict all those modern representations which make Paul fundamentally a Jew of the Dispersion. Though he was born in Tarsus, he was, in the essential character of his family tradition, a Jew of Palestine – J. Gresham Machen (The Origin of Paul’s Religion)
 
If Paul had lived today, he might have ended up on a psychiatrist’s couch. Throughout his life he was overwhelmed with an all-pervasive sense of guilt which pursued him with relentless fury. From early paintings and from descriptions in the New Testament accounts, both his and others’ we have a rather repellent physical portrait of him. Ernest Renan characterized him as “the ugly little Jew.” Paul was of slight stature, bowlegged, blind in one eye, and probably had some deformity of body. He was given to recurrent attacks of malaria, had repeated hallucinations, and some scholars believe he was subject to epileptic seizures. He was celibate, exhorted others to celibacy, and advocated marriage only in extreme circumstances – Max Dimont (Jews, God and History)
 
We learn from Paul least of all concerning the person and life of Jesus. Were his epistles lost we should know not much less of Jesus than at present – P. Wernle
 
...the Pauline epistles were as yet completely unknown in the first century AD, that in particular the existence of the Epistle to the Romans is not testified to before the middle of the second century, must speak seriously against Paul's authorship, and is evidence that those epistles cannot be accepted as the primary source of the Pauline doctrines - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)
 
The possibility of the so-called Pauline epistles having been the work of later theologians, and of having been christened in the name of Paul...is therefore by no means excluded; especially when we consider how exuberantly literary falsifications and "pious frauds" flourished in the first century, and at other times also, in the interests of the Christian church - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)
 
Marcion
Already, in the middle of the second century Marcion, the Gnostic, reproached the Church with possessing the Pauline epistles only in a garbled form…He himself undertook to restore the correct text by excisions and completions - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)
 
Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls
…the writers of the scrolls make no mention of the life and mission of Jesus on Judea and Galilee. Instead, they identify the Savior as their Teacher of Righteousness, killed by a Wicked Priest, and they await his return to join them at their annual Messianic Banquet, similar in many respects to the Christian Last Supper – intro (Christianity: An Egyptian Religion, by Ahmed Osman)
 
Jesus not of the Seed of David
…of Jesus was not the carnal son of Joseph, but was the incarnate son of Yahweh by the Holy Ghost and the yet Virgin Mary, he could not, by any possibility of human descent be a blood descendant of David, whose line and generation ended with Joseph, if Joseph was not the carnal son of Jesus. So in no sense could Jesus be a direct descendant and “Son of David” and so could not fill the first essential requirement of the Promised Messiah –Joseph Wheless
 
While the career of Jesus was to be long and distinguished, the life of his successor was more enigmatic. Here was a man who was a self-confessed liar; a “chameleon” who was able to change his religion, allegiances and name, simply to suit his own ends – Ralph Ellis (Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs)
 
He was one of the most important individuals in the last 2,000 years of history and yet we know very little about him. In fact, apart from the history given in the Bible, which was mostly penned by himself of his colleagues, we do not know even who he was. Is that not a little strange? How did this individual evade the pens of his supporters, his critics and the contemporary historians? Just who was he? – Ralph Ellis
 
Trial of Paul
It took Saul’s considerable contacts within the controlling Roman administration to secure a Roman trial rather than a Judaic one. This resulted in his transfer to Rome and a short imprisonment. The charlatan had escaped to plagiarize the Nazarene religion once more – Ellis
 
Saul tried desperately to join the ‘club’ of the Nazarene church and learn their sacred secrets, but the hierarchy was select and there was a long initiation period before anyone became a full member. Perhaps Saul had become aware of some of the secrets that the church held or perhaps he saw a way of making money – Ralph Ellis
 
Although James probably took the view that it was better to have him as a friend rather than as an enemy, he was not about to trust Saul with the inner secrets of the church…It was for this reason that the role of the stars, the cosmos, the zodiac and the sign of Pisces within the Nazarene church were all kept from Saul and, equally, it is why they are largely despised by Christianity today – Ralph Ellis
 
The Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest
These terms refer to Jesus and Paul respectively
 
Paul’s First Recruits
Who were these impressionable people that Saul was recruiting into his new Christian church? What was their background, why did they join what did they expect to gain from this association? One can only describe this new church as having being formed from the dregs of society. Saul described them as being foolish and weak and then went on to say that they were drawn from among the: “Deceivers, prostitutes, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals and homosexual prostitutes…thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers and extortionists” (See Corinthians II 2:1)
 
Acts 8:3 - Paul persecutes Christians
Acts 9:3 – Jesus talks to Paul in vision. One of history’s “greatest” moments.
 
Paul’s own books, his own words never mention the vision. Only his disciple Luke mentions it.
 
Paul mentions it only in Letter to the Galatians 1:15 and says that God revealed unto him. He does not mention Jesus, or that it was on the road to Damascus, or give any details.
 
Acts 28:30
When he was condemned to death by the Jews he fell back on his Roman citizenship and sailed for Rome under guard of Roman soldiers. He awaited his trial there, but was free to go about for 2 years. He saw many people, and preached openly. After this account we hear nothing more from the Bible. There is silence about the rest of his life and his death. There is no evidence that he was beheaded in Rome. He died 65 CE.
 
The so-called genuine Pauline Epistles, in the New Testament, are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. The other letters attributed to St. Paul were regarded as spurious. The genuine Epistles were written from about AD 52 to 64 – John G. Jackson (Pagan Origins of the Jesus Myth)
 
Paul in his Letters, the earliest historical documents of Christendom, quotes nothing that is found in our Gospels…This absolutely astonishing fact has never received any satisfactory explanation – G. R. S. Mead (The Outer Evidence as to the Authorship and Authority of the Gospels)
 
Vision on the Road
This account is not mentioned by Paul in any of the letters he wrote – more than a century earlier than the appearance of the New Testament gospels – to the communities he had converted to Christianity. Instead, in his letter to the Galatians, without making it clear where he had his spiritual encounter with Jesus, he goes on to stress that he teaching owed nothing to any man, including the Jerusalem apostles -  Ahmed Osman (Christianity: An Egyptian Religion)
 
The information about Paul as it is presented in the Acts of the Apostles is not reliable since it is not autobiographical; and if it contradicts plains statements in the letters (of Paul) it has to take second place – Martin Debelius (Professor of Theology at Heidelberg, in his book Paul)
 
The branches of the Christian Church founded around the Mediterranean by Paul were created on the informal lines favored by the Gnostics…rather than the rigid demarcation into an authoritarian priesthood and obedient laity favored by the Jerusalem apostles - Ahmed Osman (Christianity: An Egyptian Religion)
 
Paul’s Death
Nor do we have any precise details of Paul’s eventual death, but a second-century tradition existed that it took place at the hands of Nero…imperial persecutor of Christians, in AD 64 or AD67, shortly after completion of the various letters from Paul to scattered branches of the Church that are the first written evidence we have of events in the first century of the Christian era – ibid

St. Paul Fraud II