Hello, and welcome to my new topic. I’m starting this topic to enable us to continue from “The Virgin Birth Dilemma”. I think there is still plenty to discuss in regards to the VB, however it seems that our discussions have veered off of that point in a number of ways. In this topic, there is ample room for stretching our discussions, and still staying within the confines of the main topic, or at the least staying very close to the border.
Several of you already have a feeling for my personal beliefs, and you have an idea of how I approach scripture, and it’s interpretation. But in this section, I’ll bring out a new viewpoint; I’ll reveal a new way of seeing certain parts of the New Testament, and this new viewpoint will open up possibilities about Paul and James and Peter and some others, that you may not have heard before.
Also, I want to point out that my title can be mis-leading. My intention is not for you to believe that Jesus was against Paul specifically, but that from a religious standpoint, they were very different. Jesus never spoke as Paul did, Jesus never used the same ideologies as Paul, and neither did any other writers of scripture. Paul was not the same, he was not a strict follower of the law, he was GREEK in every aspect of his thinking. His philosophy, his ideas about Jesus’ salvation, and everything else, was thought up by someone who was not inherently Jewish, but Greek.
I will bring these points out, and show their evidences in scripture, and I’ll show alot of other startling problems with Paul and his creation; the birth of Christianity.
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
First of all, who was Paul? Well, we know that according to the NT, he was origionally called “Saul”, and he was going around persecuting a certain group of people, believed by many unlearned readers to be Christians, but in actuality, this was a specific group of people within Judaism. These people apparently believed in Jesus, but even after Jesus was gone, these people kept the Jewish Sabbath, the High Holy days, (like Passover, for example, which we’ve just finished, and the Feast of unleavened bread, which goes on for 7 days past Passover.), these people also ate Kosher, and still kept the law.
We also know that Saul went to Damascus at one point, in order to persecute the followers of “the Way” that were there, and there had to be a fairly good sized group for Saul to be motivated enough to go that far off. What is really interesting, is that historically, Damascus was not the hotspot for Jews, it actually was non-Jewish. Interesting.
Before he gets to Damascus, a light called Jesus visits him and tells him to do something. At this point he is changed, and now has a mission, and sets out to complete that mission. Those are the basics we know about Paul. But is there more to Paul’s writings than just a bunch of feel-good talk about Jesus and salvation? Yes- but only if you intentionally dig a little, and when Paul says something you do not understand, which is quite often, you look for that something, that is related to the passage in question, or at least seems to be.
Now right away, many of you are probably shaking your heads at my suggested way of looking at Paul in this manner, but may I remind you that you were the ones telling me that my interpretation of scripture was too literal. But in this instance, I am looking at Paul’s writings in a different light, and I’ll show you how. I will not explain everything as I go along right at first however. Because of timing, I will tell a little story about Paul, the basic plot. Then later I will answer any replies, and continue, but this time I’ll incorporate the needed passages of scripture in, to show the substance of the story I’m about to tell. This way just makes it easier for me to do, time-wise, then I can simply take more time when I return, to explain in detail how the NT portrays the story.
Saul, from Tarsus in Cilicia, is both a Jew, and a Roman citizen, according to his bio. He apparently is a learned Jew, which would mean that he had training from a very young age. (Gamaliel??) Paul begins a ministry, after his trip to Damascus changes his life. He claims (as does the NT) that Jesus visited him, and told him to go to meet someone, and his story begins at that point. Paul seems to be a strict follower of the law early on, but it seems like he has one hang-up, he has to drop the “leader of the counsel”, James apparently, with Peter and John I believe, and Paul doesn’t like this. Later on, Paul starts speaking of three “supposed pillars”, and in quite the negative tone, and James Peter and John are the only ones that even come close to fitting the description, and they come quite close at that.
But Paul keeps up his work, bringing in hundreds if not thousands of Gentiles to “the faith”. Later, at some point, a problem with Gentile converts arises. The problem is that the Gentiles seem to be “burdened” with the law. (and also circumcission.) Paul, and many others most likely, go to Jerusalem, to meet with the counsel, to discuss the issue and come up with a sollution. This is the point, in Acts 15, where James, the leader, says that there are only 4 requirements for Gentile converts, and he lists the 4 laws, then he says that in every city in the diaspora, the law of Moses is read in the synagogues every sabbath. Why does he say that?? If Gentiles don’t have to keep the law, why those 4? So they can enter a synagogue each sabbath, hear the law being read weekly, and then they can keep the law as they learn it, at their own pace, they don’t have to be stressed about trying and failing, to keep 613 commands from day 1. They will be more able to learn the law efficiently week by week, through the course of the Torah, for about a year.
Paul continues on, avoids visiting Jerusalem monthly to report to James, and when he finally meets James much later, James says that he heard many people say that Paul was telling people not to keep the law of Moses, and that Paul was teaching against the Temple, and against the counsel. Of course, James is not accusing Paul, but James does give Paul an order, to take 4 other men who want to go through a Nazarite vow, and in order for Paul to clear his good name, James tells him to pay the way for these men, and also do it himself. (This way, Paul is actually keeping the Law, so if he was being ACCUSED before, this should clear things up.) Interestingly, this is THE POINT where Paul loses his freedom until death.
Tomorrow, I will go into detail scripturally, and show how the light of scripture shows these ideas. I’ll explain how James may have caused Paul’s arrest, specifically by telling Paul to go through with the vow. James may have actually set Paul up! And the thing is, Paul does not in any way question James’ order, he obeys it. I will go into detail explaining these things and more, so I hope you’re ready!
I just want to point out, that I am not trying to cause trouble in any way- I know that most of the people here at this site are Christian, and I respect that. My goal is to tell you what I believe, and why I left Christianity, and I’m interested to hear what you all have to say. If my views are anti-scriptural, then I hope you will point that out, so that I will have a better understanding of how different Christians view scripture. I want to tell you what I think, but I’m definately interested in your input!! I’m not trying to beat anyone up, so to speak, I want to learn. And hopefully you will be open to some of the methods of interpretation that I reveal here.
-NinjaHound
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
Paul. Given the specifics of how the NT portrays Paul from the beginning of it’s mention of him, as “Saul”, I am going to start with Paul’s origin. I will begin in Acts 21:39, then Acts 22:3-4. The first passage is just a reference point, Paul claims himself to be from Tarsus, and in the NIV he says, “a citizen of no ordinary city.” At this point he is in Jerusalem, and a crowd has tried to kill him for what are apparently falsehoods they heard about him. What would an ordinary city be to the Jews he is talking to?? Another Jewish city? Hardly, Paul’s language was aimed to the crowd, so that they would understand that he was from Tarsus, and to a Jew, that would not be an ordinary city, hence Paul’s strange words in this case.
So Paul claims to be from Tarsus, and if you look up the history, Tarsus was pretty far away from anything Jewish. The complement of Jews living there was extremely low, in comparison to many other places, it was a Gentile city. The reason that this is important, is because Paul claims to be a “Pharisee of Pharisees”, and a student of a Jewish teacher named Gamaliel, one of the most revered teachers in Judaism at the time, even known today for his accomplishments. What did it mean for someone to be a Pharisee? What were the requirements? There were pretty strict requirements, and the vast majority of Pharisees were in training from childhood.
Acts 22:3-4 : “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Celicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous as any of you are today. I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and the Counsel can testify.“
So here is where we hear that Paul received his training from Gamaliel. Also, the High Priest and the Counsel can testify to the things he mentions about his past. Why is that significant? What about the High Priest and the Counsel matters to that situation? Paul arrested people, right? On who’s authority? Was Paul a cop? No, Paul was a religious man apparently, and as such, he would not have the authority to arrest people unless he were a part of those in political control of the areas he made arrests in. Rome was in control. Rome put Herod in Power, and the priesthood at that time, was placed by Herod. (Acts 4:1-3.) It is interesting, that Jesus was supposedly against the Pharisees, yet here the Saducees and the priests of the Temple (also Saducees) are against Peter and John, for talking about Jesus, a man who was supposedly against their adverseries?? At any rate, this is the indicating passage that the Sadducees are the ones in control of the Temple. Also, Acts 5:17-42 , read it now.
In verse 17, it claims the Sadducees were in control of the Temple. The Sanhedrin was mixed however. Who in this passage stands up for the Apostles? A Pharisee! Acts 23:6-7 is another good passage, and this is one that shows the two groups’ differences. The Pharisees and Sadducees are like the Romulans and the Vulcans. The two groups are related, but very different, they both believe their way is right, and the others’ way is wrong. At times, these two factions even become violent with each other. That is how different they are. Now- Acts 9:1-2 !! Here is the problem- this “Pharisee of Pharisees” is consorting with their enemy the Saducees, to get permission to arrest those in Damascus. If Gamaliel, a Pharisee, is against the descision to arrest and punish Peter and John, and if the Pharisees seem to be on the side of “the Way”, at least in general, and if the Saducees seem to be very much against “the Way”, then what is a “Pharisee of Pharisees” doing consorting with Saducees? For that matter, being a “Pharisee of Pharisees”, shouldn’t Saul/Paul be on the same exact page as these “Way” members??
Now go back to Acts 23:1-8. Now Paul manipulates the situation to save his butt, and this time he uses the Pharisees now that the Saducees are against him. What would Jesus do??
But back to the origin problem: Paul is from Tarsus. Yet in Acts 22:3 , Paul claims to have been raised in Jerusalem, (He couldn’t have been talking about Tarsus when he said “I was raised in THIS city”…. because Tarsus did not have Gamaliel, whom he claims to have been taught under in this passage. Gamaliel was a teacher in Jerusalem, and he was an advanced studies teacher. When Paul was a child he was smart enough and knew enough about the law to be accepted by such a teacher?? I don’t think so.) Another problem, is over 300 miles. Tarsus of Celicia is over 300 miles from Jerusalem. That is about from Seattle Washington, to the eastern border of the state. Paul’s parents picked up and travelled 300+ miles when Paul was a little kid?? Talk about a major undertaking back then. And why would they do such a thing? DID they do such a thing? What possible motivation could they have had to move 300 miles to Jerusalem?? They couldn’t have gone by boat, unless they were quite well off, that would have cost them. And there seems to be NO mention of Paul’s parents in Jerusalem, so what’s up with this whole scenario? Is it possible, that Paul is telling a tale to be accepted by some, so that he can gain a favorable reputation? Is it possible, that Paul was not even a Pharisee at all? Is it possible, that everything in these accounts is a clever scheme to get a large group of people back in the time of Rome, to believe in a new and powerful religion?
If that is true, then it explains why so much of Paul’s writings contradicts the idea of the law, and why so much of it contradicts Jesus’ words, and James’ words. Would Christianity exist today, without Paul? How much of what you believe about Jesus, is actually from Paul, rather than Jesus himself? If your doctrine was based solely on Jesus’ words and teachings, then what would your doctrines be??
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
Sounds like a conspiracy theory in the making, Ninjahound - but carry on, it’s fascinating. A great deal of what Christians believe about Jesus comes from his actions his death - like his resurrection. This is also derived from what happened to the disciples after Jesus’s death, like the reception of the Spirit, the spread of the church. So important as Jesus’s teachings are, it’s not just about what he taught, but what he came to do. But there are issues here, so let’s see what you have to say.
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
I am interested in your view that James, Jesus and Paul all contradict each other. And also that Paul’s theological standpoint somehow is against the Law, especially given Jesus’ views on things like the Sabbath, etc. Can you elaborate? Ta!
"It’s not how long we’ve been standing here, It’s that we haven’t moved forward…"
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
“Blind Faith is FOOLISH Faith. There is a reason, an answer for everything, it is up to us to seek and find that Truth.”
Colionelle,
Hello there! Ok- I’ll answer a little bit, but mainly I’m asking if you could elaborate on your request please.
About Paul being against the Law. First, there is obviously alot of very confusing language in Paul’s writings. However, I personally believe that what he is writing (without mentioning specific passages at this response) is that Paul tries to get you to view the Law the way HE sees it, which is, if you are willing to study the Law in other (non-Pauline) texts of the NT, totally different than the way in which any other NT writer portrays the Law. Then Paul will add little things in like “I do not nullify the Law, rather I uphold it.” Well, why did he have to add that in? Because his view sounds like he’s nullifying the law!! Therefore, he has to some how get people to believe HE has some unique way of seeing the Law that is still “ok”. I believe Paul is totally against the idea of KEEPING the Law- he even states in so many words that if we INTENTIONALLY keep the Law, we make out Christ’s sacrifice to be in vain. (Can’t remember the passage- but that quote is almost word for word.) This passage is proof that Paul does not teach the Law, the reason he gives, is that we need to FULLY trust Christ for salvation/forgiveness. Then, Paul also says in other places, many other negative things about the Law, for example, he talks about the “curse” of the Law, and says we cannot keep the Law, because we will fail at some point. But, interestingly, all these numerous philosophies that Paul constructs around the Law, are 100% un-verifiable with ANY OTHER NT WRITERS aside from Paul, or his followers Timothy and Luke. Jesus teaches us to keep the Law!! Matthew 5:17-19.
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
Hi
I’ve just found this site through searching for others who, like me, ‘have a problem’ with Paul.
Mine started when I found every reference to ‘apostle’ in the New Testament. I discovered that Paul is the only ‘apostle’ to have ordained himself. The other apostles are ordained by Jesus, the LORD, directly or indirectly.
Paul is never referred to in the New Testament as an apostle by another apostle. The only men who refer him to as an apostle are his friend Luke (not an apostle), and (I think?) Barnabas (who I believe Paul refers to as an apostle).
I then wondered why the Bible tells us there are twelve apostles, in Matthew, and in Revelation, but Paul makes..thirteen. I then wondered about Paul’s claim to be ‘apostle to the Gentiles’, when the Bible records the original twelve as appointed for Jews and Gentiles, and describes Paul as a ‘chosen vessel’ to teach Jews and Gentiles.
Ninjahound, I see that you have ‘left’ Christianity. Are you with any group now?
I ask this because I’m coming from the other way, ie I’m ‘almost-Christian’, but believe, as a Gentile, that I should be keeping the Law. I also believe in Jesus, and the power of the Holy Spirit. At present, I’m attending a ‘Church of God’ (Armstrong offshoot, although this one barely mentions WHA) and am considering becoming baptised, but I do have a problem with Paul….(this church, like most, is pro-Paul). I’ve looked at Messianic Judaism sites but even they seem not to have a problem with Paul.
Ninjahound, there is a site with the same title as your e-mail. Scott Nelson wrote a book on this very issue. If you haven’t seen it, the address is:
http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/
Debbie Took
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
Dear Debbie-
Thanks for your response! I’m shocked to find someone else who sees the massive problems with Paul!! WOW!! Ok now- I’ll check out that web site you sent me, judaismvschristianity. But I’ll try to answer your questions and give you some insight, feel free to take it for what you feel it’s worth.
You mentioned some issues that you discovered about Paul, namely that he seems to have ordained himself. Personally, I believe this to be the case. Unfortunately, I have no way to prove my beliefs about some of Paul’s issues, but there are many visible contradictions, errors, misinterpretations of quoted passages, and more, within Paul’s writings. I have found some of these issues with other NT writings as well, but nowhere near to the degree that these problems appear in Pauline writings. You have probably already read some of my findings in this regard??
Now about your question of my current status with a group or church. I origionally just went to this group, then called “Kehilat Avukah”, (Congregation of the Torch), I went one Friday evening, not because I wanted to, or because I was curious, but because a friend of mine was pestering me every day about going. I was not in the slightest bit interested, but I had to go once, just to get him off my back. The leader basically assaulted me scripturally speaking, and after a very heated 45 minute showdown, I had run out of “bullets”. This man had proven all my interpretations of the passages I used against him, to be the wrong interpretations, and he explained why they were wrong, and what the right interpretations were. His interpretations made more sense than mine, they fit the contexts in ways I was apparently blinded to seeing before. To sum it all up, even though I was not interested at all, I went home that night convinced that I needed to keep the Law, as you seem to believe as well.
Over the course of the next year, our group, a messianic group, began to discover passage after passage that seemed to very strongly support our newfound doctrines. We still believed in Jesus, but we called him “Yeshua” at this point. We still believed he was the messiah, and God in the flesh. But just before we started learning about the problems with the virgin birth, another passage was uncovered, and personally, that passage had a profound impact on me. Hebrews 10:26-29. According to that passage, Jesus sacrifice does not even cover intentional sin, which is interesting, since the animal sacrificial system doesn’t either. But that passage hit me hard, because if that is true, then only the Law can protect us from INTENTIONAL sin, by showing us what sin is, thereby helping us to avoid it. Jesus importance was just blown away in my mind, because the unintentional sin covered by the animal sacrificial system, has almost nothing to do with immorality, it has to do with cleanliness. “Do not touch the carcass of a dead animal. He who does so, though he is unaware of it, he is guilty.” There are also commands that guide an unclean person back to cleanlieness, and the process is called “Mikvah”. Today, this process in Judaism is mostly ritual, but in biblical times, Mikvah was literally what you needed to do to PHYSICALLY purify yourself and become clean again. There was some ritual in the process of doing it, but it cleansed the person(s) going through it. Modern baptism, is a Christian off-shoot of Mikvah, and has nothing to do with the origional process; physical purification. Christian baptism is simply an outward gesture symbolizing your faith in Jesus. But if the virgin birth prooftext, in Isaiah 7 is not refering to Jesus, if Immanuel is not Jesus, then Jesus is not God, could not have lived without sin, and could not have died a sacrificial death. So what is the point of Christian baptism?? On this website, I have another section titled “The Virgin Birth Dilemma”. My own thoughts are there, as well as the thoughts of others who have disagreed. Basically, it is a huge multi-person arguement, and everyone makes some good points there. But personally, I can’t follow a religious system that is so frought with problems and contradictions, and at least 99% of Christian based faith is centered around Paul, and his writings, as is their entire concept of who they believe Jesus is/was. Its all about Paul.
My group split after a year, now we follow Judaism, and the rest of the group, that followed Messianism, basically dispersed. Who is God? What is the alternative to believing in God? Darwin? Whatever. But there is a truth, and the Bible is all we have to try and understand what that truth is. If the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is the one true God, it may very well be that what little truth we have about Him, is scattered amongst many religions. It may be that we can follow Him the best we can, but we may never know the full truth, until He comes back to His people, whether that be spritual Israel IE: Christianity, or the literal, current nation of Israel. We may not have the truth until it is revealed to us at that time. One thing is for sure- If we try our best to follow HIS ways, even if it is only our interpretation, don’t you think He’d remember that?? Ezekiel 18 , God says if you live a life of sin, but in your last days repent, and live a life of righteousness, He will not remember your sin. If you live a life of righteousness, but in your last days turn to sin, He will not remember your righteousness. It sounds to me like God is watching to see what our actions will be like, and that will determine our worthieness to take part in the afterlife. If it’s not true at all, but I keep what I believe to be God’s ways, then at least my future generations will remember me as a righteous individual, who helped others when he could, who was generous, and helpful to those around him. That alone is worth keeping the Law, isn’t it?? But if I’m following the one true God in doing so, I’ll be part of the ressurection! A-MEN!!!!
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
I hesitate to intrude on private conversations between people who have a problem with Paul - but I keep tripping up over some of the things that are being said about him. I shouldn’t be surprised, as Paul had problems even in his own day with misrepresentation, and this has not ceased with people who continue to misrepresent him.
First, Paul did not appoint himself as an apostle. When he talks about his encounter with the risen Jesus on the Damascus road, he was forced into a major U-turn concerning his beliefs and practices - which up to that point had been as an enforcer of strict Judaism. The possibility of him inventing the story of his encounter is highly unlikely, given the outcome which was detrimental to his well-being in just about every area imaginable and led to an early death. But that encounter did not give him an advantage over anybody else. He places himself at the tail-end of those to whom the risen Jesus appeared - describing himself as ‘one untimely born’ - 1 Corinthians 15:8. His apostolic calling did not rest on a resurrection encounter alone, but was in him before he was born - Galatians 1:15-16. Subsequently, he describes himself as an apostle by the calling and appointment of God - not as a self-appointed ministry - eg Romans 1:1,5; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 & 2 Timothy 1:1. None of the other apostles disputed this claim, and Peter reflects a tradition of his writings having the same authority as the rest of the scriptures - 2 Peter 3:16 (note Peter’s comments on people ‘twisting’ Paul’s meaning to their own ends).
Second, there were other apostles apart from the the 12 and Paul. Romans 16:7 is the well known example, with Junias setting the case for women being among apostles. Ephesians 4:11 places the apostolic gifting alongside others - such as pastor and teacher. In other words, there is no rational argument for thinking that the apostolic gift ceased following the appointment of a special few in the 1st century. But the 12 were distinct, as those who had been with Jesus in his earthly ministry, appointed and trained by him personally. Paul was distinct - but not unique - in having met Jesus in his resurrection form. Others have followed - down to the present day: the apostolic gift being characterised by calling and practice.
People on this site who have advocated that followers of Jesus should also keep the Jewish Law (and they generally do not distinguish which of the four basic meanings of the word they have in mind in relation to Judaism) generally push us back to the pre-resurrection Jesus, without taking into account his post-resurrection actions - not least of which are his ascension, out-pouring of the Spirit, and fulfilment of the promised judgement on Jerusalem. They have not understood the purpose of the Law within God’s covenant framework to redeem the entire creation. This purpose is something Paul is at pains to point out, especially in Romans, but it can be seen elsewhere. In any case, it is impossible for Jews to practise the Law without priesthood, temple or sacrificial system.
NinjaHound has referred to Hebrews 10:26 before in his desire to show that Jesus’s sacrifice for sins did not cover intentional sin (in his parallel with the OT law). In response to this, I’d want to say that, first, he is ignoring the rest of the chapter (and Hebrews generally), which describes the law as a "shadow of the good things to come" - Hebrews 10:1, and that "He (Jesus) abolishes the first (the law) in order to estabish the second (the offering of his own body)" - Hebrews 10:10. Ninjahound does not say by what authority he enjoins keeping one part of the law whilst permitting the non-observance of the other. Those who believe in Jesus are not required to go through the observance of the written law because of the operation of the covenant in its fulfilled form - Hebrews 10:16.
As far as the absence of a sacrifice to cover intentional sins is concerned - Hebrews 10:26, the writer includes the phrase "after receiving a knowledge of the truth". The context suggests he is talking here about rather more than decisions governed by the written OT law - which cannot be obeyed in its entirety any more because of the absence of a sacrificial system, priesthood and temple. The thought could be directly taken from Paul: it is addressed to those who think they can believe in Jesus and continue to practise Torah observance (which is a central theme of Hebrews). Such a course of action is denying the freedom (from the law) which the gospel of Jesus provides, and placing its adherents back in the treadmill of sin which characterised that system. Not only do such lay themselves open to the sanctions provided by that very law against law-breakers by their decision (death "without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses" - Hebrews 10:28), but they are rejecting the sacrifice of Jesus which came to free them from that system, for which "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgement, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries" - Hebrews 10:26-27.
Those who are suggesting that followers of Jesus should also practise the details of the Jewish Torah, need to pay attention to the consequences of such a deliberate reversion to sin, in its biblical sense, after "receiving the knowledge of the truth" - Hebrews 10:26 - which came to set them free from sin and their marriage to a Torah incapable of delivering such freedom.
Those who attempt to drive a wedge between the practice of Paul and James in the NT or the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the letters make a travesty of both. Nowhere did James suggest that believers should also be observers of the Jewish law; rather (in his letter) he was inveighing against those who were hearers but not doers "of the word" - the word being "the perfect law of liberty" - James 1:25, not the Mosaic law. The "law of liberty" was fulfilled as the "royal law according to scripture: you shall love your neighbour as yourself" - James 2:8. James’s point was that there were those who were showing respect to persons because of their wealth and social standing, and ignoring the poor, needy and widows. They were denying the faith of Abraham - whose faith was demonstrated, not in works of the law as Jews would have understood it, but in actions which were the response of faith.
Likewise nowhere in Acts is it suggested that Paul practised the law as a Torah-observing Jew. As far as the law was concerned, following his encounter with the resurrected Jesus and his understanding of the fulfilment of the covenant, he was a pragmatist. Everything now became relative to the proclamation of the gospel. Timothy was circumcised not that he might become a Torah-observer, but so that the gospel could be preached without unnecessary hindrance in Jewish populated parts of Asia Minor. Paul’s observance of a temple purification ceremony in Jerusalem suggests a similar sort of principle to that described in Romans 14. Practice of certain aspects of the law for him was permissible amongst those who had weak consciences. Where it denied the gospel, as in Galatians 2:11-14, he was adamant. The denial of the gospel was evident when it led to a separation of those involved in practice of the law from those who did not practise it.
For Paul, Torah observance following the death and resurrection of Jesus had become a cultural issue which would fade as people realised the full implications of the gospel. The Torah itself was an essential part of God’s plan in that it paved the way for the gospel - in which the faithfulness of God to the covenant (to redeem heaven and earth) had been emphatically upheld. This is now the paradigm for all believers of the new covenant (which is the fulfilled covenant) - not Torah observance + the gospel, which effectively denies the gospel.
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
Hi Peter
Don’t worry about intruding - it’s a forum, so I don’t think we can say the conversation was private exactly!
First, Ninjahound, many thanks for your reply; I am going to read it in more detail later. It’s interesting that you are now following Judaism. I have actually found another site called Bible Revelations that suggests similar… by the way, in case I didn’t say, I’m from UK, and am finding that the nearer and nearer I feel I’m getting to the truth, the smaller and smaller the number of people I find in this country thinking similarly…
Anyhow, Peter, just a couple of observations re your reply.
My comments are:
You say: His apostolic calling did not rest on a resurrection encounter alone, but was in him before he was born - Galatians 1:15-16.
Er, yes..but who said that?
You say: Subsequently, he describes himself as an apostle by the calling and appointment of God - not as a self-appointed ministry - eg Romans 1:1,5; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 & 2 Timothy 1:1.
Yes, I think Paul wrote all these, didn’t he?
You say: None of the other apostles disputed this claim,
No, but none of them affirmed it either. So perhaps neither you nor I can draw any conclusions by their silence.
You say: Second, there were other apostles apart from the the 12 and Paul. Romans 16:7 is the well known example, with Junias setting the case for women being among apostles.
Yes, Paul wrote that as well. I’m sure followers of Paul would have supported the case for apostles beyond those the Lord had appointed. This stands to reason, as they had obviously accepted Paul as an apostle.
Do any of the other apostles talk of people beyond the twelve being apostles? I think only Paul does, but then, if he feels he can call himself an apostle, he would of course also declare that others who had not been appointed by the Lord could also be apostles - it would legitimise his own claim.
You say: Ephesians 4:11 places the apostolic gifting alongside others - such as pastor and teacher. In other words, there is no rational argument for thinking that the apostolic gift ceased following the appointment of a special few in the 1st century.
Yes, and, of course, Paul wrote Ephesians as well, so, to quote someone well known in the UK a while ago…’he would say that, wouldn’t he?’. My argument for thinking that the apostolic gift ceased following the appointment of a special few is that they were just that, a special few, appointed by the LORD. Is that irrational?
Amongst other things, you say:
Those who are suggesting that followers of Jesus should also practise the details of the Jewish Torah, need to pay attention to the consequences of such a deliberate reversion to sin, in its biblical sense, after "receiving the knowledge of the truth" - Hebrews 10:26 - which came to set them free from sin and their marriage to a Torah incapable of delivering such freedom.
Peter, you are saying that followers of Jesus who practise the details of the Jewish Torah ‘need to pay attention to the consequences of such a deliberate reversion to sin, in its biblical sense’.
Peter, when I read a statement like that, I know I am on the right tracks.
Debbie Took
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
Debbie
You ignore the main thrust of my argument! However, to respond to three details of your reply:
First - in asserting that Paul’s writings had the status of scripture (the same word used elsewhere of the Hebrew scriptures by the NT), Peter also implicitly accepts Paul’s repeated affirmation that he was an apostle appointed not by himself (or man), but by God. This is in addition to the other arguments I put forward in support of Paul’s claim, to do with an apostle’s integrity.
Second - you are implying that the term ‘apostle’ gives the bearer some kind of special status. Paul never claimed that status - the only status he claimed was as a bearer of the gospel, the evangelion of Christ. That Paul did not see the ‘gift’ as giving him status is evident in the inclusive way in which he uses the term - hence the references to Ephesians 4 and Romans 16:7. The gift was evident in its practice as much in its divine commissioning. And in the character and lifestyle of its practitioners. That is why Paul could distinguish himself from other ‘super’ apostles.
Third - I don’t think you can have understood me correctly, when I said that
"Those who are suggesting that followers of Jesus should also practise the details of the Jewish Torah, need to pay attention to the consequences of such a deliberate reversion to sin - - - "
You are on the right tracks - to sin? I don’t really think you have understood me - or the implications of the evangelion of Jesus as the fulfilment of the Torah, yet leaving the Torah very definitely behind as a stage in God’s covenant purposes. You have certainly ignored my point about the impossibility of obeying the Torah today when there is no priesthood, sacrificial system or temple. Which track are you on?
Re: Jesus and Judaism vs. Paul and Christianity
Well said.
Assumptions about the divergence of Pauline and Jacobine theology and practice are just that - assumptions. They are the result of subjective deconstruction rather than proper synthesis. In other words, we see contradictions where we want to see them.
Much of what I see being expressed here is based on the assumption that Paul did not follow the Law. This is clearly not the case. He is often found observing the Law. What Paul detested from the compulsion of others to follow the Law. The Law in itself is not wrong, but when Christians - like the Pharisees Paul knew only too well - demanded the Law as the absolute measure of righteousness, he withstood their teachings with his hallmark eloquence and flint-faced stubbornness.
A Response
Wow…we’re back to the hellenistic Paul (one would have hoped that this theory had been laid to rest with E.P. Sanders, et al.) and, apparently even the anti-Torah Paul of Nietzche (“The Jewish Dysangelist”). We’re also back to pitting the apostle Paul against the Twelve (Baur’s tired hypothesis of the Pauline and Petrine lines of Christianity, which, most scholars today would agree, is no longer tenable), and Wrede’s (now antiquated in my opinion) thesis of Paul as the true founder of Christianity. I find that J.G. Machen’s work still stands, and continues to undermine much of the arguments being put forward against the legitimacy and self-claims of Paul as an apostle of Jesus Christ (see http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/jgmjesuspaul.htm).
“His philosophy, his ideas about Jesus’ salvation, and everything else, was thought up by someone who was not inherently Jewish, but Greek.”
This is patently false. Let me briefly summarize the arguments that have been made against this thesis. Clearly the apostle is steeped in the OT traditions (who seriously doubts that he was a Pharisee, trained in Jersualem?). But note how much the apostle differs from the Hellenistic worldview (and precisely at these poiints reflects his Jewish origins). First, Paul is obviously monotheistic (e.g., 1Cor.8:6). More than that, like his Jewish brethren, he is exclusivistic in his monotheism, contra the remarkable syncretism of 1st century hellenism. Paul’s theology proper is to be sharply distinguished from the monotheism of the pantheistic Stoics and the impersonal (and immobile) deity of Plato or Aristotle (immobilized through philosohical ‘necessity’). And certainly Paul had very little in common with the materialistic Epicureans (whom he debates in Acts 17, along with Stoic philosophers). Secondly, Paul clearly has a high view of the Law as divine revelation over and against the ethical chaos he saw in the heathen world (see Romans 1:18-2:29; 3:2; 9:3-4). He saw the Law and the Prophets as divinely inspired, and as such authoritative for the Christian (contra Marcion and other anti-Judaistic gnostics).
The apostle rejects entirely the Greek psychology and subsequent ‘personal eschatology’ (see, e.g., 2Cor.5:1-6; cf. 1Cor.15:1-57), which so deeply captivated the gnostic conception of salvation, and so widely diverged from that of the apostle. This is true not only of Paul’s wholistic view of the human person (contra the hellenistic dualism of body and soul), but even his understanding of ‘the flesh’ as sinful nature, which is to be sharply distinguished from the Greek concept of ‘the passions’. Paul saw no struggle between men’s ‘upper’ or ‘noble’ nature and his ‘lower’ passions. Rather, his was the struggle of the flesh of man agains the Holy Spirit of God (e.g., Gal.5:17). Only gnosticism could blur these into identity. Paul’s eschatology of old age and the coming new (a horizontal as opposed to a neoplatonic vertical, dualism in cosmology) is clearly Jewish, as is his linear understanding of redemptive history, which is approaching an apocalyptic ‘telos’ (contra the circular conception of history found in Greek thought). And note the very Jewish cosmology articulated in Paul’s speech on Mars Hill, particularly in his doctrine of creation and divine providence (underscoring the divine aseity and transcedence with respect to the created order over and against Stoicism and crass paganism). Paul’s rich understanding of creation, fall, and redemption is totally foreign to the Greek world.
Paul’s ethics is ultimately Torah-based (and thus the Spirit-filled Christian satisfies the Law’s requirements, just as Ezekiel and Jeremiah prophesied, see Ro.8:3-4; 13:8-10; Gal.5:13-23; e.g., Eph.6:1-13; cf. 1Ti.1:8-10, where Paul sees the law as ‘conforming to the glorious gospel of the blessed God’), though dramatically re-oriented and re-interpreted through the lens of the Christ-event, which he saw as the pivot of redemptive history (Gal.3:15-25; Ro.10:4), the point at which the new age to come is inaugurated, overlaping the present, evil age (just as Jesus taught in his parable of the wheat and tares, for example). This is not far from Jesus’ own pronouncement about his fulfilling the Law and Prophets in Matthew 5:17. Moreover, it should be well noted that Paul was NO antinomian (e.g., Ro.3:31!). Indeed, he saw himself as no longer under the Law (with its threats and curses), and yet he was not free from the Law of God, but under the law of Christ (which I take to mean the fulfillment - not the nullification - of the Law and Prophets in Christ), 1Cor.9:20-21. Thus Paul sees both deep continuity and deep discontinuity between the two covenants of Sinai and Zion. The resemblance of some of Paul’s ethical statements to Stoicism, upon scrutiny, are superficial at best. The suffering apostle was certainly no Stoic (read 2Corinthians, for instance, and compare with Marcus Aurelius or Seneca, a contemporary of Paul).
Lastly, the Pauline doctrine of ‘mystical’ communion with Christ has less to do with Greek mystery religions (which were ahistorical, syncretistic, and non-ethical) and more to do with the unique Christian (post-Pentecost) pneumatology, first articulated by Jesus in his earthly ministry (and recorded by the apostle John in his gospel) in the announcment of the Spirit’s advent and in-dwelling, through whom Christ would indwell His people. (And we’ve made no mention of Paul’s Judaic concept of ‘covenant’).
So Paul differs significantly from Hellenism in his theology proper, his cosmology, anthropology, redemptive-history and eschatology (if hellenism can be said to have such) and his ethics. Certainly Paul differs from the Judaism of his day, but then, so does Peter, James, and John. We should not be surprised by this, of course, as Christianity saw itself as standing both in continuity and discontinuity with the Jewish religion according to the ‘promise-fulfillment’ scheme: the OT prophetically anticipated the Christ of the New.
I encourage you to read Machen’s classic work “The Origin of Paul’s Religion”, F.F Bruce’s “The Apostle of the Heart Set Free,” and N.T. Wright’s clever if at points frustrating “What St. Paul Really Said”. Also check out Wenham’s “Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity?” These should clear up some of the confusions (e.g., Paul’s authority to arrest ‘heretics’ as falling under the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin and the motivation of his orthodox parents to have him trained in Jerusalem).
Response
Because I’m so immersed in things to do with Paul at the moment, the issue of Paul’s upholding of the covenant seems to me to be the key factor underlining Paul’s Judaistic orientation. As you may have picked up from other posts, I’m leading a team of 8 teachers in our church community who are working on a teaching series on Romans later in the year. Fools will rush in. KJ1’s response intimidates me somewhat, as it makes me feel I know next to nothing about the history of Pauline interpretation: but he makes a good informal non-stipendiary consultant.
If the key theme in Romans is “the righteousness of God” - Romans 1:16-17, and Paul’s determination to vindicate it, it seems to me that N.T. Wright’s (www.ntwrightpage.com) interpretation of God’s righteousness as his “faithfulness to the covenant” provides a key to the whole letter, and the key to Paul’s passion, deeply rooted in his Judaism - both before and after his Damascus road experience. The perspective is significant because it shifts us from a man-centred to a God-centred way of viewing the letter (and not least Romans 1:16-17).
I also liked what I read of KJ1’s comment on the covenant in one of these posts. (One covenant - developed through those to whom God gave it, if I understand KJ1 correctly). The underlying aim of the covenant being, of course, God’s determination to fulfil his plans for creation and humanity whilst dealing with sin.
If you are still out there debbie - I made a drastically oversimplified assertion in my comment to you, for which I apologise, but I’m not sure we are going to be able to agree about Paul. I did also look up some background to your group, and the Bible Revelations site. The latter is a Seventh Day Adventist site - not necessarily the worse for that, although Ellen White might bear some further critical examination. The Armstrong connection with the group you say you belong(ed) to would bear a great deal of examination. The article in Wikipedia on Armstrongism (Herbert W and Garner Ted - whom I remember from weekly programmes on one of the pirate radio stations here in the late 1960’s) presents an unedifying spectacle of the group - though they have tried to clean up their act in more recent years.