Can we believe St. Paul? (Jehovah, priests, Muslim, marriage)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's too good to miss. I post Part 1 of my notes on Paul which were a spin -oof from remarks about his reliability on an evolution thread.
I shall add part II and anyone who is appalled at the length and uninterested in the subject is welcome to skip it and do something else. I'm posting mainly for my pal SekerSA tp browse.
"I don't usually start posts attacking an aspect of religion but respond to attacks or to claims for religion. This arose from a digression on the Evolution -theory or fact?' thread, about Paul and dishonesty and dissembling, if not lying, for his faith.
Paul immediately confesses to sinning; not just the blanket sin that the Abrahamic religions suppose we all have from birth but a specific sin: as a circumcised Jew, he does not observe the Jewish law as he should.
Romans 7.7 "What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[ 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."
Paul admits here that he does not adhere to the (Jewish) law. Nor does anyone else since even the observant break it. His argument is that the law only makes men sinful, because without the law there would be no breaking of it. The Law then brings sin (you can save yourself the trouble of arguing as Paul says so) The only release from this sin is through faith In Jesus.
2.Cor 3. 13 "We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Now I'm not saying that Paul is a liar because he is not perfect. It is a matter arising from this.
1 Cor 9. 19 "Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
This is what I mean by dissembling. He misrepresents his behaviour in order to win converts. He pretends to the Jews to be an observing Jew, though he indicates here that he isn't and doesn't. He regards Faith in Jesus as releasing him from any obligation to observe the law. But didn't he say in Romans 2.25 "Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised."? It is clear that Paul does break the law but, in order to win converts, behaves as though he was still observant. Paul is certainly circumcised but happily accepts that his circumcision through breaking the law, has become what he is pleased to regard as uncircumcision. Wherein Law and the 'sin' it produced in him was replaced by a whitewashing release from sin in Faith in Jesus.
In Acts (While I regard Luke as unreliable, Bible believers presumably won't) we see Paul happily playing the observing Jew to still these questions about him (which we can surely see are quite justified) by those apostles who clearly were observing Jews.
Acts 21.17 "When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law."
We can see this as Paul advocates eating anything set in front of you, clean or unclean or even offered to idols, in order to not to cause the other to 'stumble', though Paul drawn the line at eating anything that you have been told was offered to idols.
1 Cor 10.27 "If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?"
and he advises his followers to follow his example
1. Cor 10.31 "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. "
1 Cor. 9.1 "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord." (This shows that some at least doubted that he was indeed an apostle.)
1 Cor. 9. 3 "This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. 15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. 16 For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel. "
Paul protests that he doesn't use his right (both in temple usage and scripture) to make a living and take a share of the proceeds. But he admits elsewhere that he does.
2 Corinthians 11.7 "Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you."
And, if he was not, why is anyone sitting in judgement on him, presumably as as apostle? The suspicion is that the apostles actually chosen by Jesus (as distinct from Paul who pretty much proclaimed himself one by divine appointment) don't make a living but share everything in the common purse. That Paul sees his authority under question in connection with that suggests that he did indeed take his living from the proceeds and his protestation are really that he could have helped himself to more. but didn't. But this is (I concede) reading between the lines.
Paul admonishes about boasting, judgement and malice, but he does not practice what he preaches.
1 Cor. 5.6 "Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."
Des Paul follow this example? Sincerity and truth or malice and wickedness? We saw above that he doesn't do good though he claims that he would like to. Bearing in mind that the Jesus party in Jerusalem were observing Jews and expected him to be observant too (which he evidently wasn't) it is not surprising that they sent to his churches that they should observe the law. Paul counters this and attacks the 'super apostles' by which we mean the actual followers of Jesus
2 Corinthians 11.3 "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5 I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.”[a] 6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way."
He has made it perfectly clear that his knowledge is flawed, his visions of Jesus imaginary and his authority based on those visions doubtful and he himself is a bit of a twister.
1 Cor 7.29 "What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;"
This shows that Paul expected the judgement soon, in their own lifetimes and of course the gospel -writers echoed this. Paul was wrong which means that we cannot trust his visions.
2 Cor. 12 .2 "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell."
If Paul isn't talking abut himself, I know not where he got his gentile - friendly, uncircumcision, abolish- the- Law gospel as he sure didn't get it from the 'Super apostles' whose gospel he warns against. In fact he says so in Galatians:
Gal.1.11 "I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.".."15 But when God...was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus."
During his chats in the Third heaven. But his false interpretation of scripture at least makes the validity of this claim doubtful, (I would prefer not to speculate on his remark at Galatians 4. 13 "As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you, 14 and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.") and his interpretation of temporal events is no more trustworthy.
2 Cor.11. 31 "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands." It is ridiculous and unhistorical to suggest that Aretas knew or even cared anything about Paul
His denunciation of the 'super apostles' goes on quite shockingly:
2 Cor.11.12 "And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."
And we cannot trust him in his Bible quotes either.
2 Cor 4. 1 "Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God."
Just see how he twists the meaning of scripture.
Paul argues that if God decides to break his covenant with the Jews and bestow the promise of Abraham on gentiles who are we to argue? Is it unjust of Hm?
Rom 9. 4 "...the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.....it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. ....30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
Isa 28:16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that
believeth shall not make haste. It looks like he has interpreted the sense thus:Isa 28:7 the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink..they err in vision, they stumble [in] judgment. 28:8 For all tables are full of vomit [and] filthiness, [so that there is] no place [clean]. 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?... 28:10 For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little: ...yet they would not hear. 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken".
following Paul, this is the stone laid in Zion which these people stumble over. The rules and regulations. but Isaiah goes on to say that the stone is a sure foundation. The idea is that none of them are worthy. No -one really observes the Law. This is the basis of the idea that God, disgusted with the Jews' failing to observe His Laws (Paul again changes his stance as Law observance is not the charge but observing the law but not being righteous and that is the charge made again and again in the gospels.)
Paul is Lying here or at least misrepresenting scripture. This refutes his claim to honesty. in II Corinthians 4.2 "But 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."
Craftiness and fiddling the word of God is what Paul does repeatedly
Paul's argument is that no-one is righteous. But why would that mean that the God - given Mosaic Law has thus become unable to save or was never intended to save, even if Paul is justified in saying that no - one keeps it or bad behaviour nullifies it? He justifies that view with God apparently saying so in scripture. But Paul compiles that passage of his by cherry - picking items from a lot of sources:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;" the nearest is Isaiah 41:26 "Who hath declared from the beginning, that we may know? and beforetime, that we may say, [He is] righteous? yea, [there is] none that sheweth, yea, [there is] none that declareth, yea, [there is] none that heareth your words."
Rom.3.12 "All have turned away, ...."
Dan 9.11 "All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. they have together become worthless (greek achreioo make useless, render unserviceable-a) of character) there is no one who does good, not even one." 13 "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit."
Paul quotes Daniel but not the bit about transgressing the law. It does not suit his thesis that transgressing the law should be the sin rather than turning away from just being a good person rendering the Law invalid.
Rom. 9.25 "As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved."
Hosea 2:23 "And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to [them which were] not my people, Thou [art] my people; and they shall say, [Thou art] my God." This is about the Hebrew people who had adopted foreign forms of worship:
Hosea 2.16 you will call Me [l]Ishi And will no longer call Me Baali. 17 “For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth,"
God is talking about His people returning rather than a foreign people becoming His. Paul has seriously distorted scripture to support his thesis.
Rom 9.27 "Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:"
Isa 10:22 "For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, [yet] a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness." (although Isaiah is referring to Assyria as God's tool of punishment, it can easily seem to refer to a latter day punishment, as Paul clearly sees it)
Rom 9.25 "and her beloved, which was not beloved"
This is not found. I have seen no reference to any text corresponding. I did notice that some commentators noted that Paul had twisted the meaning somewhat in order to make his point. The fact is that the stuff about whoredoms, flagons of 'new wine' and the like could be seen as a warning against following Gentile ideas and 'new' teachings.
Rom.3 11 "there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God."
Psa 14:2 "The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God. 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy, (Niphal, corrupted, sour, like milk) [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one."
But these people (see Psalm 14 and 53 [the same] are the gentiles who 'eat up' the Jews. This does not relate to backsliding Jews.
Paul has gone further than just collect doubtfully relevant quotes: he has twisted the meaning of this passage. Instead of supporting Paul's argument than sinning has made the Law unable to save, and the Law was only there to increase the sin, the Law is a sure foundation and is the rule and benchmark for righteous behaviour.
Rom 10.19 "First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you."
Paul's line is that God has lost patience with Israel and has turned to the gentiles as a way of shaming the Jews into believing the new teachings. We can see here the embryo of Christian theology. Paul was indeed the first Christian in the sense that we understand it now, never mind whether the Greek for 'Messianist' was applied to Jewish followers of Jesus.
Deu 32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy
with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation."
Isa 65:1 "I am sought of [them that] asked not [for me]; I am found of [them that] sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation [that] was not called by my name. Isa 65:2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way [that was] not good, after their own thoughts;"
And what sort of people were those? Isa 65:3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; 65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable [things is in] their vessels;
65:5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou."
Who do those sound like? Gentiles or observing Jews? God does not make cause with foreign gentiles, though He may sometimes use them to punish Israel (or so the prophets explain their frequent defeats).
In A.D 36-7 Paul fled Damascus. When he says he 'returned' does he mean that, after he was converted he went into Arabia and then 'returned' (for the first time) to Damascus or did he flee Damascus into Arabia and the 'return' to Damascus. Why would he go back where he had escaped from? At any rate, after three years he went up to Jerusalem and saw Cephus (Peter) and James, brother of Jesus (Odd that Paul swears that he is not lying. We have seen that he uses this term when he is not being totally honest or putting his own slant on events)
Then after 14 years (from when?) he went up to Jerusalem for the council. Since the earliest date from which this can be judged is around AD 36/7, this places what is evidently the council of Jerusalem around AD 50/51.
Galatians 2.1 "Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles." Acts 15.1 "And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."
Again he rather belittles the apostles of 'High Esteem'
Galatians 2.6 "As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along."
If he had been doing this all along it is clear that he is referring to his collecting amongst the Gentile churches for the famine. But that had been in AD 45. Why would James and Peter have been asking Paul to go on collecting for famine relief that was no longer needed? The whole NT report of the council looks like a cover - up. Paul talks of a revelation but Acts says that he went up to get a ruling. Effectively, he was summoned to explain himself. We already saw that Paul played the observing Jew upon arrival at the suggestion of James.
Acts 15. 4 "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. 5But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up,.."
It is not convincing that those who required circumcision by those who become converts were just a few Pharisees. Effectively the whole Jesus party were observing Jews and Peter's supposed speech against observance of the Mosaic rites, which silenced all there and won the case for Paul, does not fit with Paul's argument with Peter about not eating with Gentiles which also seemed to have persuaded many others.
Gal.2. 12 "For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray."
We see that it was James who sent these men. James was an observing Jew and Peter at least tried to be. How then can we believe the Gospels that show Jesus dismissing all these observances as irrelevant? And how can we believe Paul when he claims that nothing was added to his message, which was that the Mosaic law didn't matter, only Faith in Jesus. Luke in Acts goes a bit further supposing that James wrote a vague letter about abstaining from blood and Idols which we saw James referring to as having been sent out before the council, when Paul arrived.
Acts 15. 28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
Acts 21. 20 "When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them."
While this is placed after the council it is surely before, as the missionary Journeys are shown in Acts as occurring after the council of Jerusalem when we have already seen Paul (probably on the last of these missions) going round the churches of Greece with the collecting tin.
And so in Galatians, we see Paul putting a gloss on what was actually laid on him at the council and admonishing the Gentile churches not to listen to those false apostles who are undermining his gospel.with a 'gospel' saying that they have to observe the Mosaic Law. Gal. 4. 20 "...I am perplexed about you! ....21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" Gal,5 2 "I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law."
Paul as we have seen, does not keep the whole law. Indeed he condemns those circumcised who are zealous to keep it even though he is willing to play the observing Jew when he is trying to persuade. One could argue that he distinguishes between those who can't help it that they have been circumcised and those who decide to go for it, but that's a rather nice distinction, which of course Paul does not explain.
And we find echoes of that remark which I pointed out to our pal (...name omitted... ), the remark that looked as though Paul was saying that lying to make converts is not a sin.
Gal 5. 10 "I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view (than mine). The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"
To claim that he is preaching circumcision is really trying it on.
I don't want to be unfair to Paul. His intentions were of the best. He wanted his fellow citizens - gentiles - to share in the Abrahamic promise of salvation and he spoke harshly of any who, he felt, were taking that away from them by insisting that gentiles could not unless they adopted the jewish law.
Paul is quite controversial. But it is very probable he spread Christianity (or is it)
Most Jews I know doubt that Paul ever was a Jew. In the writings attributed to him, he seems to display total ignorance of Judaism.
Oddly of his claim of having killed many Christians before his "Vision" There does not seem to be any historical evidence he ever did. Perhaps his intent to begin with was to "Rule" not persecute the Christians.
In Paul's defense there may be an explanation as to Paul's apparent contradictions. This is a view I only recently became aware of. Although I knew that some books attributed to Paul were not written by Him.
Quote:
What can we reliably know about Paul and how can we know it? As is the case with Jesus, this is not an easy question. Historians have been involved in what has been called the “Quest for the Historical Jesus” for the past one hundred and seventy-five years, evaluating and sifting through our sources, trying to determine what we can reliably say about him. As it happens, the quest for the historical Paul began almost simultaneously, inaugurated by the German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur. Baur put his finger squarely on the problem: There are four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point.
It appears that Christianity was developed by a group project that came to be called Paul.
Possibly. But I'd suggest Paul was a very outspoken individual and he did have a powerful personality which comes through in his writing and thought. And I think he does come through in an upfront way in the letters. Only a fellow like him could look at what went before in the concept of Christianity and literally change the direction and flow of the 'Christian' argument and what it meant. Fact is he was pretty eloquent. As we know there's Christianity BP and AP...before Paul and after Paul. Question is do we know alot accurately of what went 'before Paul? And how reliable is that? Getting more knowledge of what went before will also offer clearer insight into Paul and his Christ/Spirit focus.
Pretty much agree on your analysis Arq. Woodrow introduces the aspects I had also looked into and IIRC somewhere in these studies, the Paul was thought to be Jerome.
I also agree that this Paul fella was not that up to speed on Judaic laws and traditions hence his claim to be both a Pharisee and Roman citizen did not gel. Some comments on your comments.
Quote:
Paul admits here that he does not adhere to the (Jewish) law. Nor does anyone else since even the observant break it. His argument is that the law only makes men sinful, because without the law there would be no breaking of it. The Law then brings sin (you can save yourself the trouble of arguing as Paul says so) The only release from this sin is through faith In Jesus.
This aspect of not following the law and suggesting the law was the reason for sin b/c if you were unaware of the law, by inference you could not break the law.
If he actually had read up on the law, one would assume whoever it was, read about laws that had obviously been abandoned like the stoning for petty sins. Some dietary laws could well have been moot and not deemed necessary. We have already heard our Jewish members here do not follow the entire law and is inferred that if you keep as much as you can you in fact keep the entire 613. When this deviation took place is questionable as in the gospels we have the story of the adulteress which goes against the premise Jesus claims to stand for the law and then does not allow the law to be enacted by passing a guilt trip on them. Scholars suggest that this story was a later addition. It probably never actually happened but sets a contradiction of both the ministry of Jesus and the alleged laws of Moses.
Simply put, Jesus, being god incarnate would have been fully aware of the intent of the law if it was his dictum as claimed OR it was never his law and in a way illustrates the law was indeed man made.
Occam's razor demands that if this is the conclusion, one must either accept the laws were man made (they were) and thus irrelevant. In that event, Paul's dismissal of the law seems pretty rational. But is it?
It seems that the main issue revolves around circumcision. Circumcision was anyway a covenant with Abraham and not Moses but it appears the practice continued as the religion of the Jews morphed.
Oddly enough, this aspect of circumcision which has really no medical benefit is still practised widely in the US to this day by xians. There are oodles of threads dealing with the relevance in modern society.
That alone suggest to me the law Paul was referring to and even the observant Jews simply revolved around issues not really associated with the actual laws. Either that or the Laws of Moses are an addendum to the Abrahamic covenant.
As we read on, it does appear the Abrahamic promise does in fact make a cameo appearance to suggest a fulfilled prophesy/promise to Abraham that his "Seed" shall be as the sands of the sea, one assumes a beach.
I see you did not pick up on Timothy. He was apparently circumcised by Paul to appear to be acceptable for the Jews. I will deal with that in a separate post.
Quote:
This is what I mean by dissembling. He misrepresents his behaviour in order to win converts. He pretends to the Jews to be an observing Jew, though he indicates here that he isn't and doesn't. He regards Faith in Jesus as releasing him from any obligation to observe the law. But didn't he say in Romans 2.25 "Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised."? It is clear that Paul does break the law but, in order to win converts, behaves as though he was still observant. Paul is certainly circumcised but happily accepts that his circumcision through breaking the law, has become what he is pleased to regard as uncircumcision. Wherein Law and the 'sin' it produced in him was replaced by a whitewashing release from sin in Faith in Jesus.
As you alluded to, he does make it up as he goes along, lying for Jesus is what we heathen term this and is still in practice to this very day.
I am not sure if Galatians is actually attributed to Paul. From what I remember it was not or his authorship was questionable.
Like I said elsewhere, the way the narrative is compiled, it actually paves the way for Paul to take over from the apostles and take it to the gentiles despite incorrect claims he makes as being the chosen one. The Bay of pigs story is actually the first interaction with Gentiles by Jesus and is followed up by another visit later. If anything, the dude having demons cast out was the first non Jew witness. Jews by virtue of their dietary laws, would not farm with pigs. Back in the Tentmaker days I quizzed the forum and no one had even noticed this despite many hints. Simply goes to prove my earlier assertions that Paulinists know very little of the gospels as Jesus gets very little attention in the churches.
Blind acceptance of Paul being righteous b/c he sells what was a feel good easy religion, appeals to the ignorant and lazy. His narrative does appear to read easier and does appear to contain pearls of wisdom. He also does not appear to be as judgemental as Jesus toward the religious.
He was like the modern day Benny Hinn who has claimed on TV to be God's anointed. He also issued veiled threats that god would punish his detractors, he really is the modern version of the fictitious Paul.
Well, this has been much discussed, was Paul wrong? He has Timothy circumcised, and so he doesn’t offend the Jews. Well, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9, "To the Jew I became as a Jew; to the Greek I became as a Greek." He’s not compromising the gospel. Timothy is already saved, so he’s not saying, "Timothy, you are not saved unless you get circumcised," but it’s so as not to give an offense to some of these Jews.
Tom: After all, Timothy was Jewish, at least half Jewish.
This is a clear indication of the lack of understanding between Christians and Jewish tradition. If the mother is a Jew, the kid is a Jew by default. FlipFlop can interject here if I am wrong. The tradition of the Jews is a matriarch one which if this was the tradition at the alleged time of Jesus, the lineage traced back in Luke and Matthew would of course be moot.
Now the way the OT was written/translated, the begats do tend to do it via the male but they were doing it into the future. IOW highlighting the sons that were born from... The reversal of this, it probably does allow a matriarch lineage. I really have nothing firm on this. One probably takes the known aspect of the woman becoming the "property" of the husband which seems to be consistent in the OT and even in modern culture where the woman takes on the husband's surname. That could be an interesting thread on its own.
The circumcision of Timothy and the idea of heart circumcision is clear that Paul was deceitful depending on his audience. However, the logic behind the no need for physical circumcision really is not a show stopper.
The claim it is covenant is moot as many cultures practiced this independent of Jewish customs. (Link)
Clearly the concept of law was miserably understood if circumcision was the focus of Paul's teachings. It was an exclusive covenant with the Jews. Even back then it already did extend to non Jews
12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.â€
If Paul/Jerome did indeed know the Hebrew scriptures, this angle would not have been invented. Let us see what the RCC view on this is.
Historically, the Roman Catholic Church denounced religious circumcision for its members in the Cantate Domino, written during the 11th Council of Florence in 1442.[35] This decision was based on the belief that baptism had superseded circumcision (Col 2:11-12),[36] and may also have been a response to Coptic Christians, who continued to practice circumcision.[citation needed] The modern Roman Catholic Church maintains a neutral position on the practice of non-religious circumcision, and has never addressed the issue of infant circumcision specifically. (wiki)
Pretty clear evidence that like everything else, this religion simply adapted to changing norms in culture as the the farce spread.
The baptismal doctrines alone are a huge point of contention. We have the orthodox doing infant baptism which probably came from the Calvin aspects of kids not being innocent and born in/out of sin, something that sex was indeed deemed a "dirty" but necessary evil. Hence we have orthodox sprinkling of infants which is linked to the sprinkling of blood to worship Baal to the preferred evangelical immersion; suggesting the baptism of Jesus carried out by the river Jordan was immersion. Iconography depict both types viz paintings of immersion and JTB using a jug. Some sects even argue the aspects of dunks, one or three. Pretty stupid as the time of Jesus' alleged baptism, there was only a Father and an incarnate son. The holy spirit had not yet been invented.
I mentioned in the other thread the apsect of the gifts of the holy spirit namely tongues which morphed from actual languages to the tongues of angels by Paul. The Greco pagan aspects here are clearly apparent if you studied the Greek pantheon and what those beliefs entailed.
The pentecostal and charismatic types now espouse you are not really saved unless you can speak in psycobabble. IOW you must be baptised in the holy spook to really really be sure you are saved. Based on the alleged teachings of Jesus, the only reference that Jesus made to a holy spook was that a helper would come. Reading the narrative into Acts, this appears to be a fulfillment and is cherry picked by evangelicals to support this doctrine.
The odd thing here is the alleged crucifiction of the robber who is told he will be in paradise w/o either baptism. Ergo, simple belief that Jesus is the son of God means you can be a Christian and saved.
The evangelicals and charismatics still have an infant ceremony and dedication is identical to that of the orthodox just w/o the sprinkling bits. Tradition does have a way of morphing to suit new ideas and new dogma. I have experienced both with my family.
I clearly remember when I "rebelled" against the orthodoxy I was attending then and went to an evangelical church to be "properly" baptised; I had to sit through a 101 sermon on why the baptism was indeed needed to be by immersion and not as I had had in orthodoxy by sprinkling. He pretty much cherry picked a lot from Paul and bounced around the bible but was not that convincing. I had already made the decision purely based on tradition I had been brought up with in my parent's church who only practiced adult baptism by immersion. Their version required you to go through a probation period to prove your dedication. The Church of Christ folk were totally different so much so, they would dunk you the same day at their church before you changed your mind.
Generically, they all tend to agree that baptism is a symbolic public gesture of burying the old man and rising anew in Christ. Of course this also made the salvation available to women seeing they did not have the god antenna which could be modified or did it?
Women saved by childbirth
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Remember I have stated the four pillars of Christianity, how they trace back through the Law, the Fludd and the so called creation. Well here we have a different model for women.
Again this is probably derived form the OT texts of impurity differences between bearing a male child and a female child.
The penis was pivotal to religion and women have always gotten the short end of it
Seeing how the aspects of baptism cannot be agreed on as a standard procedure, it is not hard to again apply Occam's razor and deduce this is a man made doctrine.
What I was told in my 101 baptism was that the aspect of confession espoused by Jesus and the Pauline doctrine of public confession.
Jesus
32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.( Matt 9)
Paul
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.(Romans 9)
Are they the same? Not really. Neither of these have anything to do with baptism either by water or by the holy spook. These two are merged in a baptismal ceremony usually a Q&A and then the standard "I baptise you in the name of..."
And of course, Peter claimed to be the 1st bishop of Rome (he was not) denied Jesus yet became the "rock" on which the church would be built. This because he had a revelation of Jesus being Lord. It is so confusing. No wonder the Christians cannot agree with one another.
The idea is that through Jesus perfection is attained. It is all BS as even following all the prescribed rituals, it is overtly apparent that they are really no different to us pond scum
In the end I suppose it really does not matter which bait one takes so long as you buy in to the BS and become a mindless zombie for Jesus and most importantly are financially contributing member. The more of the latter you do, the quicker you rise up the ladder.
It is my opinion, many of the Jews that were Jesus followers actually abandoned the sect and reverted back to Judiasm. I am also of the opinion that even the so called big crowds must have been made up of multiple cultures as the message varies between condemning the Scribes and Pharisees to offering salvation to other sheep. The miracles were probably added later to make this guru appear more divine.
I have to yield some credence to the gospel accounts but I still believe that 90% are probably embellished folklore that crept in over time.
Staying on this theme, the areas that Jesus suggests that ye are gods tends to support the concept I have that gods are mere extensions of peoples own egos and not some ethereal god in the sky somewhere. (Psalm 82). This is also probably the justification we see here of the spiritual types that do not follow xian dogma anymore.
And of course, Peter claimed to be the 1st bishop of Rome (he was not) denied Jesus yet became the "rock" on which the church would be built. This because he had a revelation of Jesus being Lord. It is so confusing. No wonder the Christians cannot agree with one another.
You know theological inquiry is tough especially Christian history. As noted,scholars who read the books 24 hrs a day 7 days a week for 75 years and have studied the 'texts' can't make firm, complete sense of it all from a historical point of view. I know it's not easy but anything which deals with man's relationship to things that exist in the world is subject to the problems inherent in historical analysis. For sure, it's too bad Peter and Paul didn't have a a tape recorder or sit for the video camera. Yeah perhaps Christianity would be much simpler to analyze and deconstruct. But we have to deal with what we've got centuries on to do insightful historical analysis and try to dismiss biases which could affect how one looks through the lenses of inquiry.
That is a silly assertion. If they had the technology we have and the demand for proof like we do today, christianity would not exist. Your premise fits nicely in with the supposed oral tradition of being told what to believe. That is still essential in this day and age b/c the bible is obviously errant regardless of what version you own.
Contrary to popular belief, what most folk regard as true translations are not, they are based on nothing substantial and the written texts have known forgeries/later additions like 15th century later and yet the texts remain unaltered. Some may have included a footnote here and there.
~ I've had my own issues with the whole counsel of Paul.
I've come to the conclusion in his letters
that we're seeing him also grow-in-The Lord.
Within contradictions.
What bothers me most is
his contradiction of some of the things Jesus Himself taught!
I think he should have 'conferred' more with 'The Apostles 0f The Lamb'!
Paul rebukes Peter for flip-flopping once.
When Paul does the same thing.
When people believe that every word Paul wrote
is the infallible inerrant Word 0f God?
I assure them they don't even believe what they call 'scripture'.
What about where Paul states that he is of the tribe of Benjamin???
Peter being The Key Master.
Opened the door to The Gentiles for other Apostles.
Which Paul admitted. - Acts 10 - 14:27
So the door to the gentiles wasn't opened by Paul, but Peter!
"Men & brethern you know that a good while ago (it was well known)
God Chose Among us that by my mouth The Gentiles should hear
The Word 0f The Gospel And Believe. - Acts 15:7
As well at this time (acts 10) was when through The Apostle Peter.
The gentiles also first received The Holy Spirit. Just as The Apostles.
The Apostle Peter was the first Apostle to the gentiles.
Not Paul.
I agree...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The circumcision of Timothy
