Did Paul champion the Cause of Christ or corrupt it?

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

I think Paul was a man who saw the growing church and the chaotic nature of it if was to be left alone. So he got the bright idea to write a bunch of letters to churches telling them what to do to bring the system to order and make it more in control to ether gain power from it or protect it from outside sources.

 

[oldbadger]

But Paul says that if Jesus hasn't risen from the dead, then Christians should be the most pitied of all people. So should we be pitying them?

Imagine any devoted and genuine type of religious person who lives an entire lifetime of visiting religious centres for services, feeling guilty about various bodily needs and forces, obeying all kinds of guidance rules & laws, and generally having been told how to think behave and ..... generally how to live; and at the end of their life they (somehow) discover that 'The Path of Zog' or whatever was not even a rough-track let-alone a pathway to a happy heaven or pleasure dome (whatever)....... and they are telling you all this (somehow) ..... you certainly couldn't feel empathy for them 'cos you didn't experience all that waste of life yourself, but you sure could have sympathy. Would you? Would you sympathise?

 

[oldbadger]

This all started because I said that Paul changed the course of Christianity and that the Christianity of Paul is not the Christianity of Jesus.

IMO that's a perfect precis of the whole issue.

There is nothing in the Baha’i Writings that contradicts that so it is just a matter of personal opinion.

Exactly, imo.
From what I have read, Bahauallah certainly did not believe in Paul's Christianity, but he definitely did think that Jesus (Yeshuia) was an important religious messenger, which I have little doubt that both he and the Baptist were.

Regarding the Law, it is clear that Christians are no longer under the Law, they are under grace.

Many Creeds believe in the above, but many other Christian Creeds believe in Heaven through right-living, right-thinking.

Are Christians under the Law?
by Matt Slick

No, Christians are not under the Law.
​

[
Trailblazer, I have never quite understood this particular belief held by some Christians...

The New Testament shows 1050 guidances, rules and laws for Christians to live by, including having to live under the laws of the lands which they reside within, which of course does suggest 'living under a law'.

Maybe Paul felt that 'entry to heaven' din't require a perfect life, just faith... ?

​

I am not criticizing Paul. I am not saying he was a bad person. Clearly, he had faith in Jesus Christ and spread the gospel message far and wide. I am only saying that Paul did not represent what Jesus taught. He started a new religion.

He certainly did........ Yeshua BarYosef and the Baptist had a completely different mission. I've often wondered whether Paul's contract to put down Yeshua's followers switched into a complete 'hearts and minds' re-routing into a system of control that Rome had thought out? A system that eventually would go wrong for Rome and need culling out? This sounds incredible until we think of the ridiculous initiatives that some of our secret services have dreamed up and failed at over recent decades!

What bothers me so much about this is that so many Christians believe that their beliefs come from Jesus when in reality they come from Paul.

Pauline Christianity in its most extreme groups has produced churches that want to see public (painful) executions of Gays, Adulterers, Prostitutes, Murderers, Abortionists etc etc....... a kind of religious psychosis.

As an aside, the reason I do not want to study the Bible or talk about Christianity is because of the way it affects and infects my mind. I have enough trouble with God and my own religion. I do not want to have these false beliefs infiltrating my mind. No, there is no danger I will believe them but they have an effect when you are exposed to them a lot.

I'll bet that Bahauallah warned folks to keep clear of anything that was harmful to them.

A person is either a Baha'i or a Christian. It is dishonest to say you can be both because they contradict each other. Baha'is believe in Jesus, , but we do not believe in the doctrines of Christianity. Abdu'l-Baha makes that perfectly clear.

OK....... so there are some paragraphs in Bahai which make a lot of sense to me. You've shown that here.

 

[paarsurrey]

@Trailblazer
We need to better understand the Apostle Paul better through the lens of Baha'u'llah's revelation. I am unable to find anything of a negative or critical nature in the Baha'i writings towards the apostle Paul. To the contrary it is all affirms the role and authority of Paul.



Injunctions are a form of law are they not?

The injunctions laid down to the church of Corinth are seen as laws applicable to all churches by Christians. There is no reason to see them in any other light.

The Universal House of Justice is not a manifestation of God, yet is has the power to created or over rule laws according to the exigencies of the time. The exception is they can not over turn laws that are in the explicit writings of Baha'u'llah.

Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian both had the authority to interpret the laws of Baha'u'llah and to clarify them.

Paul believed he had the authority from Jesus to Preach to the Gentiles. That could all be confusion and delusion except Peter whom Jesus appointed as His successor (Matthew 16:8) affirmed the truth of Paul's Teachings (2 Peter 3:15-16).



As said by another, that is not true. There are many laws outside of the Kitab-i-Aqdas and much of the Kitab-i-Aqdas is not laws.



There was enormous emphasis in the New Testament placed on assisting the church to understand the implications of the New Covenant and what it mean for the Old Covenant (Mosaic law). It is because the Jews believed all their Covenants from God were eternal and not transitory.

An essential part of the Old Covenant was the promise of One who would renew it.

Messiah in Judaism - Wikipedia

The verses you quote do not mean that Christians should become anarchists and have no laws.

That is made explicitly clear in your next excerpt.






No longer under Mosaic law but under the rule of Christ.

When Christ stated the most important law (Matthew 22:37) he was actually quoting from Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 6:5). So clearly some of the Mosaic law is still applicable as Paul made clear (Acts of the Apostles 15:29).



We need to understand Paul through a Baha'i perspective. This link is from a conservative Christian perspective and includes references to the doctrine of the fall of Adam which Baha'is reject. The doctrine of the original sin is an example of Christians misinterpreting and misunderstanding Paul's comments in regards references to Adam.



Once again we need to look to the Baha'i writings. Abdu'l-Baha has mentioned Paul and his role abrogating Mosaic law.

For example, in the time of Moses, His Law was conformed and adapted to the conditions of the time; but in the days of Christ these conditions had changed and altered to such an extent that the Mosaic Law was no longer suited and adapted to the needs of mankind; and it was, therefore, abrogated. Thus it was that Christ broke the Sabbath and forbade divorce. After Christ four disciples, among whom were Peter and Paul, permitted the use of animal food forbidden by the Bible, except the eating of those animals which had been strangled, or which were sacrificed to idols, and of blood. They also forbade fornication. They maintained these four commandments. Afterward, Paul permitted even the eating of strangled animals, those sacrificed to idols, and blood, and only maintained the prohibition of fornication. So in chapter 14, verse 14 of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

Also in the Epistle of Paul to Titus, chapter 1, verse 15: “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

Now this change, these alterations and this abrogation are due to the impossibility of comparing the time of Christ with that of Moses. The conditions and requirements in the later period were entirely changed and altered. The former laws were, therefore, abrogated.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 93-96

Abdu'l-Baha supports the needs for the law to be abrogated and affirms the role the apostles took in abrogating the law.



You seem to equate not being under Mosaic law with lawlessness and breaking the law. Both the bible itself and the Baha'i writings affirm that Christianity is not a lawless religion, that Paul didn't teach lawlessness. In fact Abdu'l-Baha praised his character and exhorted the Baha'is to be like Paul.

Now, like unto the morn, the light of the Sun of Truth hath been shed abroad. Effort must be made that slumbering souls may be awakened, the heedless become vigilant, and that the divine teachings, which constitute the spirit of this age, may reach the ears of the people of the world, may be propagated in the press and set forth with brilliance and eloquence in the assemblages of men.


One’s conduct must be like the conduct of Paul, and one’s faith similar to that of Peter. This musk-scented breeze shall perfume the nostrils of the people of the world, and this spirit shall resuscitate the dead.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 223-224



That's a little like saying, I want to know the Baha'i Faith of Baha'u'llah and not Abdu'l-Baha.

If you are disinterested in learning about the Bible then should you be quoting from the bible or giving an opinion about characters in the Bible?



There are an abundance of biblical scholars that both support Paul and criticise him. The problem in taking a perspective of being so critical of Paul is the risk of contradicting the Baha'i writings and the Bible itself.

Once I have some time I'll consider what this biblical scholar has to say and comment further.

Thanks for posting.

"Abdu'l-Baha has mentioned Paul and his role abrogating Mosaic law." Unquote.

So, it was Paul who abrogated the Law of Moses, Jesus did not abrogate it.
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

I had always believed Paul was one of the most important and influential apostles. This was my belief as a Christian and then when I converted to the Baha'i Faith. I'd always maintained that the New Testament provides an authoritative and authentic testimony to the life and Teachings of Lord Jesus. Both Peter and Paul are regarded highly in Baha'i theology. Jesus asked Peter to lead His church and Peter clearly affirmed the authority of Paul in one of his letters (2 Peter 3:13-18).

I always unquestioningly assumed Paul's apostle to be affirmed by the Holy Spirit until I came across an internet discussion group called religious forum. Paul was clearly the focus of criticism from Muslims, Jews, ex-Christians, atheists and some who had developed their own unique theology. It seems those who would criticise Christianity see Paul as being a weakness and easy target. It has even been claimed Paul corrupted the gospel of Christ.

To be clear Baha'is are not Christians and although we share many Christian beliefs we have some important differences. Christians believe in the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, a literally resurrected Jesus, and Jesus being physically God incarnate. Baha'is recognise Muhammad, Buddha and Krishna as being Manifstations of God along with Jesus and Moses. God manifests or reveals Himself through these Great Educators spiritually and not physically. We see the resurrection of Jesus as being of fundamental importance but of a spiritual nature. However we do not reject Paul as an Apostle of Christ.

So what are the arguments for and against Paul? Did he really change the message of Christ? Didn't God/Jesus give the apostles the authority to speak on His behalf?

He is the only one scholars believe might have actually written the things attributed to him. The other writers are all anonymous.

 

[Marcion]

He is the only one scholars believe might have actually written the things attributed to him. The other writers are all anonymous.

I'm curious to find out what we know about this man called Paul in the New Testament from external sources, that would make him a real historical character.

 

[CG Didymus]

Imagine any devoted and genuine type of religious person who lives an entire lifetime of visiting religious centres for services, feeling guilty about various bodily needs and forces, obeying all kinds of guidance rules & laws, and generally having been told how to think behave and ..... generally how to live; and at the end of their life they (somehow) discover that 'The Path of Zog' or whatever was not even a rough-track let-alone a pathway to a happy heaven or pleasure dome (whatever)....... and they are telling you all this (somehow) ..... you certainly couldn't feel empathy for them 'cos you didn't experience all that waste of life yourself, but you sure could have sympathy. Would you? Would you sympathise?

If Jesus hasn't risen from the dead, then Christians should be the most pitied of all people. So should we be pitying them? I said that meaning that if the Baha'is are correct that Jesus didn't rise physically from the dead, then by what Paul is teaching is wrong. He doesn't believe Jesus is dead. He believes that Jesus came back to life... at least that is what my Christian friends tell me. So they shouldn't be pitied at all.

But, if Jesus is dead, and only his spirit is alive, then what? And, if that's the truth, then they should be pitied, 'cause for 2000 years most Christians have been wrong. But who ya goin to believe? Christians show the Scriptures, including Paul's. Baha'is, mostly Adrian, show me an alternative interpretation of those Scriptures to make them symbolic. I think I'm to be pitied. What do you believe? Maybe I'll try that instead.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have never quite understood this particular belief held by some Christians...

The New Testament shows 1050 guidances, rules and laws for Christians to live by, including having to live under the laws of the lands which they reside within, which of course does suggest 'living under a law'.

Maybe Paul felt that 'entry to heaven' din't require a perfect life, just faith... ?

That's what I was taught to believe. Since we can't be perfect, and will fail at trying to keep the laws of God perfectly, we can't get into the Christian heaven by our good deeds. Paul quotes, probably out of context, that our righteousness is like "filthy" rags to God. So faith in Jesus gets us in, and Paul says that way it's not by our good works, so nobody can boast. But there is always a glitch. If a person isn't perfect, and can't do the things Jesus commands perfectly, how about that person's faith? Isn't that imperfect too?

When I was trying to be a Christian, I had doubts galore. Others that had doubts would say that the devil was messing with their heads. Maybe. But maybe... it was reason. Maybe the subconscious saying that some of those Christian literal beliefs don't make any sense. But the Baha'i Faith is supposed to be a reasonable faith... Something that you don't have to turn your brain off to. But I had doubts, and still do, about some of the things they believe.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I was thinking its really helpful to have the thoughts of a reputable albeit controversial biblical scholar on this thread.

James D Tabor, Contributor
Professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Writer, Researcher, Christian Origins, Ancient Judaism

Messiah in Judaism - Wikipedia

This scholar is not without his critics but that is fine.

James Tabor - Wikipedia

Lets' consider the points he makes.

Christianity Before Paul

The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity can be traced back to Paul — not to Jesus. In contrast, the original Christianity before Paul is somewhat difficult to find in the New Testament.

It is fair to say that Paul had an enormous role in presenting the Teachings of Christ to the non-Jewish audience. 13 out of the 27 books in the New Testament are considered to have been written by Paul although there is controversy over 6 of those books.

Do keep in mind that it is not Paul's fault that so many of his works made it into New Testament Canon. Nor was it his doing that he was accepted as a an apostle along with the others. That is just who he was and the way it played out. The New Testament canon was chosen in the 4th century BC and most all the early Christian writers and scholars appear to have regarded Paul highly. For example one of the earliest references to New Testament canon is Clement of Rome.

Clement... makes occasional reference to certain words of Jesus; though they are authoritative for him, he does not appear to enquire how their authenticity is ensured. In two of the three instances that he speaks of remembering 'the words' of Christ or of the Lord Jesus, it seems that he has a written record in mind, but he does not call it a 'gospel'. He knows several of Paul's epistles, and values them highly for their content; the same can be said of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which he is well acquainted. Although these writings obviously possess for Clement considerable significance, he never refers to them as authoritative 'Scripture'.

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia

Over the span of my academic career I have taught a course simply titled “Paul,” and I half-jokingly tell the students the first day that Paul is one of those people for whom a last name is not necessary, much like Elvis or Madonna. I have begun the course with what I intend to be a startling assertion: Paul is the most influential person in human history. I have in mind, of course, the West in particular. The foundations of Western civilization, from our assumptions about reality to our societal and personal ethics, rest upon the heavenly visions and apparitions of a single man — the apostle Paul. We are all cultural heirs of Paul. In contrast, Jesus as a historical figure — that is, a Jewish Messiah of his own time who sought to see the kingdom of God established on earth — has been largely lost to our culture. In this holiday season, it is worth taking pause and thinking a bit about the historical origins of the Christian faith, and how much it depends on St. Paul.

Visit any church service, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Greek Orthodox, and it is the apostle Paul and his ideas that are central — in the hymns, the creeds, the sermons, the invocation and benediction, and of course, the rituals of baptism and the Holy Communion or Mass. Whether birth, baptism, confirmation, marriage or death, it is predominantly Paul who is evoked to express meaning and significance.

We still have the four gospels that make up the first four books of the New testament. The question is did Paul contradict what Jesus said. it is true that Paul had a lot to say about the Teachings of Christ but what is there that's opposed?

The first problem we have is the relative paucity of New Testament that includes the actual words of Jesus. The four gospels have unclear authorship though I understand from a Baha'i perspective John the apostle is most likely the author of the gospel of John. However that gospel was the last of the gospels to have been written late in the first century. So we have an understandable degree of uncertainty as to what Jesus taught.

We need to be clear that the Teachings of Christ needed clarification and elaboration. Imagine how confused and divided Christianity would have become if it had not been for the Apostles. Consider how necessary the interpretations and explanations of Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian were for the Baha'i Faith. To have no Apostles to have made interpretations would have prevented Christianity from being communicated to the Gentiles.

 

[Trailblazer]

But, if Jesus is dead, and only his spirit is alive, then what? And, if that's the truth, then they should be pitied, 'cause for 2000 years most Christians have been wrong.

But why should they be pitied? I mean why should we feel sorry for them, because they were duped by the Church? Maybe, but there is no reason to pity them anymore because Baha'u'llah came and straightened all that out. The information is available if they really want it but if they want to continue to cling to their beliefs that is their choice because they have free will. I see no reason why anyone should feel sorry for them, not anymore. They are getting something out of that belief, or at least they think they are. From the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus they are getting all kinds of other beliefs, like the belief that Jesus is coming back and the belief that their bodies will rise from the grave and be glorified. From what I have seen, they do not want to relinquish these beliefs. It's their choice.

 

[oldbadger]

If Jesus hasn't risen from the dead, then Christians should be the most pitied of all people. So should we be pitying them? I said that meaning that if the Baha'is are correct that Jesus didn't rise physically from the dead, then by what Paul is teaching is wrong. He doesn't believe Jesus is dead. He believes that Jesus came back to life... at least that is what my Christian friends tell me. So they shouldn't be pitied at all.

But, if Jesus is dead, and only his spirit is alive, then what? And, if that's the truth, then they should be pitied, 'cause for 2000 years most Christians have been wrong. But who ya goin to believe? Christians show the Scriptures, including Paul's. Baha'is, mostly Adrian, show me an alternative interpretation of those Scriptures to make them symbolic. I think I'm to be pitied. What do you believe? Maybe I'll try that instead.

I don't believe that Jesus was a Christ. I don't believe that Bahauallah was a manifestation of God. I think that Omar Khayyam was closer to truth than Bahai or Christianity. But that's just me......

I'd love to sell you some Deism but the trouble is, it's buck-shee, only requiring your own thoughts to lead you to it if they can agree that all (everything and nothing, every force and no force) is a part of God, but a God so vast that you and I are as obscure to it as the kit-kat wrapper on my desk.

*Old-B checks to see if any mods are watching* ... you wanna buy in?

 

[Dawnofhope]

The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity, namely that Christ is God “born in the flesh,” that his sacrificial death atones for the sins of humankind, and that his resurrection from the dead guarantees eternal life to all who believe, can be traced back to Paul — not to Jesus. Indeed, the spiritual union with Christ through baptism, as well as the “communion” with his body and blood through the sacred meal of bread and wine, also trace back to Paul. This is the Christianity most familiar to us, with the creeds and confessions that separated it from Judaism and put it on the road to becoming a new religion.

Perhaps Tabors main point is the Pauline Epistles that were to become canonical new testament books were available well before the gospels. These epistles in all likelihood influenced the gospels. A good example is the resurrection first mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15. There is a good reason to believe the gospel writers simply incorporated the resurrection narrative that was being preached by Paul. Of course Baha'u'llah emphasises the importance of the resurrection in the Kitab-i-Iqan and Abdu'l-Baha explains the body of Christ imagery that Paul uses represents the church.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 103-105

The belief that God is 'born in the flesh' or 'physically God incarnate' is reinforced by John 1:1-3 and reference to the logos.

It is important to be aware of the abundance of biblical scripture that does not support this position and I'm sure you are very aware of this. For example:

1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Such scripture seems to imply that Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate.

The narrative of sacrificial death atoning for the sins of mankind is certainly from Paul. Jesus was hardly likely to made an issue of His crucifixion! However to what extent did the Churches misunderstand and misinterpret what Paul said?

Abdu'l-Baha makes mention of the sacrifice of Christ.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages 449-452

as well as sin and atonement...

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

Abdu'l-Baha is never critical of Paul of course. He simply reframes the understanding of the bible.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Paul never met Jesus. The chronological facts are undisputed. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor or prefect of Judea, in April, A.D. 30. As best we can determine it was not until seven years after Jesus’ death, around A.D. 37, that Paul reports his initial apparition of “Christ,” whom he identifies with Jesus raised from the dead. He asks his followers when challenged for his credentials: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” equating his visionary experience with that of those who had known Jesus face-to-face (1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul’s claim to have “seen” Jesus, as well as the teachings he says he received directly from Jesus, came after Jesus’ lifetime, and can be categorized as subjective clairvoyant experiences (Galatians 1:12, 18; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 12:1-10). These “revelations” were not a one-time experience of “conversion,” but a phenomenon that continued over the course of Paul’s life. Paul confesses that he does not comprehend the nature of these ecstatic spiritual experiences, whether they were “in the body, or out of the body” but he believed that the voice he heard, the figure he saw and the messages he received were encounters with the heavenly Christ (2 Corinthians 12:2-3).

God certainly does move in mysterious ways when it comes to Paul. This is all true.

I believe Paul was a mystic who had a close relationship with Jesus in the spirit. It sounds odd but the fact remains the truth of his teachings are affirmed by Peter. We do have works from other apostles that makeup the new testament canon.

It was a full decade after Jesus’ death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem (whom he calls Cephas, his Aramaic name), and had a brief audience with James, the brother of Jesus, and leader of the Jesus movement (Galatians 1:18-23). Paul subsequently operated independently of the original apostles, preaching and teaching what he calls his “Gospel,” in Asia Minor for another 10 years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around A.D. 50. It was only then, 20 years after Jesus’ death, that he encountered James and Peter again in Jerusalem and met for the first time the rest of the original apostles of Jesus (Galatians 2:1). This rather extraordinary chronological gap is a surprise to many. It is one of the key factors in understanding Paul and his message.

Once again Peter has affirmed the truth of what Paul has said. Paul's relative independence is not atypical of many outstanding characters in history. It wasn't as if he had no contact with any of the apostles ever.

What this means is that we must imagine a “Christianity before Paul” that existed independently of his influence or ideas for more than 20 years, as well as a Christianity preached by Paul, which developed independently of Jesus’ original apostles and followers.

To imagine the teachings of Christ without the apostles would be like imagining the teachings of Baha'u'llah without Abdu'l-Baha. In some ways the are analogies between Paul and Abdu'l-Baha. Both had outstanding character. Both interpreted and taught the Teachings to another culture, Paul to the Gentiles, Abdu'l-Baha to the Christian West. Both had some authority in regards what they taught, Abdu'l-Baha directly from Baha'u'llah through His Will and Testament, Paul affirmed through Peter who was appointed by Christ. Both were tireless promulgators of their religion who sacrificed their lives for their cause. Paul was eventually Martyred.

I have spent my 30-year career as a scholar of Christian Origins investigating the silence between two back-to-back statements of the Apostles’ Creed, namely that Jesus was: “Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary,” and that he “Was crucified, dead and buried, and on the third day He rose again from the dead.”

Is it not striking that this oldest and most foundational Christian creed jumps from Jesus’ birth to his death and resurrection, entirely skipping over his life?

How did it happen that the way Jesus came into the world, and how he left — Christmas and Easter — came to define Christianity itself? Here Catholics, mainstream Protestants and evangelicals all agree. To be a Christian is to believe in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ, and thus to participate in the salvation Christ brought to the world as God-in-the-flesh.

All true.

In contrast, the original Christianity before Paul is somewhat difficult to find in the New Testament, since Paul’s 13 letters predominate and Paul heavily influences even our four Gospels. Fortunately, in the letter of James, attributed to the brother of Jesus, as well as in a collection of the sayings of Jesus now embedded in the Gospel of Luke (the source scholars call Q), we can still get a glimpse of the original teachings of Jesus.

Agreed.

What we get in the letter of James is the most direct possible link to the Jewish teachings of Jesus himself. James is quite sure that the “Judge” is standing at the door, and that the kingdom of God has drawn very near (James 5:7). He warns the rich and those who oppress the weak that very soon the judgment of God will strike. James seems to be directly echoing and affirming what he had learned and passed on from his brother Jesus. It is important to note that James did not directly quote Jesus or attribute any of these teachings to Jesus by name — even though they are teaching of Jesus.

For James the Christian message is not the person of Jesus but the message that Jesus proclaimed. James’ letter lacks a single teaching that is characteristic of the apostle Paul and it draws nothing at all from the Gospel narratives. What we have preserved in this precious document is a reflection of the original apocalyptic proclamation of Jesus: the “Gospel of the kingdom of God” with its political and social implications.

Christianity Before Paul | HuffPost

Interesting points.

Once again thanks for introducing the works of a biblical scholar. It really elevates the discussion to another level.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Abdu'l-Baha has mentioned Paul and his role abrogating Mosaic law." Unquote.

So, it was Paul who abrogated the Law of Moses, Jesus did not abrogate it.
Regards

Both Jesus and Paul abrogated the law of Moses.

 

[Dawnofhope]

He is the only one scholars believe might have actually written the things attributed to him. The other writers are all anonymous.

There is almost unanimous agreement from scholars that seven of the New Testament books were written by Paul. Just because a book doesn't mention who wrote doesn't mean to say it wasn't know who wrote it. Having said that I freely acknowledge the uncertainty when it comes to most of the other books in the New Testament.

Yours avatar looks sad btw.

 

[Marcion]

There is almost unanimous agreement from scholars that seven of the New Testament books were written by Paul. Just because a book doesn't mention who wrote doesn't mean to say it wasn't know who wrote it. Having said that I freely acknowledge the uncertainty when it comes to most of the other books in the New Testament.

There is a whole school of scholars who believe that those letters were never sent by anyone and were ever written by a Paul from the first century. I agree fully with their ideas. But I am sure that Simon Magus was a great tantric so it doesn't bother me.
However it is nice to know what the real history is behind things, well sort of.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is a whole school of scholars who believe that those letters were never sent by anyone and were ever written by a Paul from the first century. I agree fully with their ideas. But I am sure that Simon Magus was a great tantric so it doesn't bother me.
However it is nice to know what the real history is behind things, well sort of.

I am not a biblical scholar and although Wikipedia has problems and is far from authoritative, the people who run it do make concerted efforts to ensure its material is well referenced, fair, and balanced as per the standard of any reputable encyclopaedia.

There is nearly universal consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon.

Authorship of the Pauline epistles - Wikipedia

The standard for scholarship usually involves peer reviewed works rather than members of a political/religious organisation that all believe the same thing.

Marcion of Sinope had a valuable role to play in the development of Biblical cannon but was considered a heretic.

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

In some ways the are analogies between Paul and Abdu'l-Baha. Both had outstanding character. Both interpreted and taught the Teachings to another culture, Paul to the Gentiles, Abdu'l-Baha to the Christian West. Both had some authority in regards what they taught, Abdu'l-Baha directly from Baha'u'llah through His Will and Testament, Paul affirmed through Peter who was appointed by Christ. Both were tireless promulgators of their religion who sacrificed their lives for their cause. Paul was eventually Martyred.

Yes, there are many similarities, but there are also differences. Paul did not have authority conferred upon him directly from a Manifestation of God as did Abdu'l-Baha. Paul changed the course of Christianity but Abdu'l-Baha did not change the course of the Baha'i Faith. Rather, he carried it forward.

I could not sum up the difference between Jesus and Paul better than wizanda did in #39

"The simplest way to explain the difference is: Yeshua came teaching a 'Living Gospel' where by doing good works, helping the poor, healing the sick, we could make it Heaven here...

Paul & Simon (Christianity) taught a 'Dead Gospel' where believing jesus is your lord and savior who came to die, you get free eternal life simply for believing."​

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, there are many similarities, but there are also differences. Paul did not have authority conferred upon him directly from a Manifestation of God as did Abdu'l-Baha. Paul changed the course of Christianity but Abdu'l-Baha did not change the course of the Baha'i Faith. Rather, he carried it forward.

I could not sum up the difference between Jesus and Paul better than wizanda did in #39

"The simplest way to explain the difference is: Yeshua came teaching a 'Living Gospel' where by doing good works, helping the poor, healing the sick, we could make it Heaven here...

Paul & Simon (Christianity) taught a 'Dead Gospel' where believing jesus is your lord and savior who came to die, you get free eternal life simply for believing."​

Shoghi Effendi was not appointed as Guardian and authorised interpreter by a Manifestation of God. He was appointed by Abdu'l-Baha who had been appointed by Baha'u'llah. The truth of Pauls letters were affirmed by Peter who was appointed by a Manifestation of God.

I have had many conversations with Wizanda over the last 2 years. Wizanda accepts just the synoptic gospels and rejects all the other books in the bible. He has an unusual theology based around his near death experience. I agree with some things he says but disagree with the rejection of any new testament canonical book.

Calling Paul's teaching a 'Dead Gospel' would be considered a heretical view by many Christians not to mention rude and insulting. The Baha'i writings provide extensive commentary on the New Testament and Christianity. There is not one verse that would support such a view.

As a Baha'i who grew up Christian and keep close associations with many Christians, I work hard to associate with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship. Most of the Christians I know are really nice people. I am the Baha'i representative on the interfaith council in my city.

I remind Christians I believe in the same God, Jesus, and Bible they do and that is accepted.

I may refer to Abdu'l-Baha's comment:

THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God.

Bahá'í Reference Library - ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in London, Pages 17-18

I believe based on my study that Abdu'l-Baha would want me to continue to develop my knowledge of the Bible.

The Bible and the Gospels are most honored in the estimation of all Baha'is. One of the spiritual utterances of His Holiness Christ in his Sermon on the Mount is preferable to me to all the writings of the philosophers. It is the religious duty of every Baha'i to read and comprehend the meanings of the Old and New Testament."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 14, p. 55)

I am starting to study the gospel of Matthew with some Christians on RF:

Study of Matthew

My understanding from the Baha'i writings is we should never force or impose on our views on others including Christians and our fellow Baha'is. We should give each person the space to understand God's revelation in their own way. We have a different perspective when it comes to Paul and I completely accept that.

Its been useful to have a discussion with you about Paul.

 

[CG Didymus]

But why should they be pitied? I mean why should we feel sorry for them, because they were duped by the Church? Maybe, but there is no reason to pity them anymore because Baha'u'llah came and straightened all that out. The information is available if they really want it but if they want to continue to cling to their beliefs that is their choice because they have free will. I see no reason why anyone should feel sorry for them, not anymore. They are getting something out of that belief, or at least they think they are. From the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus they are getting all kinds of other beliefs, like the belief that Jesus is coming back and the belief that their bodies will rise from the grave and be glorified. From what I have seen, they do not want to relinquish these beliefs. It's their choice.

Paul is the one that said if Jesus hasn't risen that Christians should be the most pitied. So his point is that they shouldn't be pitied, because they are right... Jesus has risen from the dead. So the pitiful thing is... the NT gospels say he did and Paul and the others say he did. Baha'is say he didn't.

But, Baha'is say Jesus is a manifestation and how great he was. And then cut down all the myths and legends about him that made him great. Did he literally do any of the miracles? Who knows? Could the writers have added them in? Easily. If they did... does that make Jesus great and the NT the word of God? No. Unfortunately, Adrian keeps pointing out how Baha'is should believe in the gospels and what Paul said, when you and I know, that would be a total contradiction.

The stories imply Jesus is God, because it says he forgave some guys sins. The story says he rose from the dead and conquered Satan's power. The story says a couple of people were brought back to life by Jesus and several people came out of their graves when Jesus was killed. Plus, the walking on water and turning water into wine and healing lepers and the blind people. Makes a fantastic story, but without those things, Jesus didn't do anything. Those things are the story about Jesus. Those things give him the authority to be speaking for God. Take them away and what did he do? He, supposedly, said a few things? What if those are myth and legend also?

But, if a person's going to believe all that stuff is the truth, they got to believe Jesus is somebody special. Somebody that can forgive them of their sins and allow them into heavenly paradise. And, that he is coming back. That is Jesus. Not Muhammad or the Bab, or Baha'u'llah. The story says it's Jesus that's coming back... at least to Christians it does. But you know how it goes, Baha'i writings can explain all those references to the return to show it is not Jesus.

But that means, if they are going to believe Paul is special, they got to explain his writings too. The main one being that Paul did say that Jesus, indeed, rose from the dead. And why oh why, like Baha'is claim, would he mean it symbolically? Either Jesus did or he didn't rise physically. To rise "spiritually" in a symbolic way is meaningless and makes all of Christianity meaningless. Not now. Not since Muhammad came, but from the beginning. It was a myth-based religion that gave people a false hope in something better in some perfect spirit world in the sky... pitiful isn't it?