It obscured his meaning and sullied the clarity of his message.
What clarity? The man was a confused, conflicted individual (and that is the nicest way that I will phrase that). Why I may like your interpretation of his writings better than the ones which hold sway in popular Christianity today, you are doing the same thing that other camp is doing...picking and choosing according to your own personal feelings about what he must have really meant.
I think Paul's writings became prominent and survived in part because of the conflicting views. There was something there for everyone (even if later it that something was supposed to be a singular faith). That and his writings also fit the political climate at the time during which Chrisitianity became widespread due to the fact that the ersatz ruler of half the known world adopted it and not because of any inherent rightness of its, or the Pauline, message.
Re: Paul=Antichrist?
What clarity? The man was a confused, conflicted individual (and that is the nicest way that I will phrase that). Why I may like your interpretation of his writings better than the ones which hold sway in popular Christianity today, you are doing the same thing that other camp is doing...picking and choosing according to your own personal feelings about what he must have really meant.
I think Paul's writings became prominent and survived in part because of the conflicting views. There was something there for everyone (even if later it that something was supposed to be a singular faith). That and his writings also fit the political climate at the time during which Chrisitianity became widespread due to the fact that the ersatz ruler of half the known world adopted it and not because of any inherent rightness of its, or the Pauline, message.