Paul a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus

[Brian2]

You might imagine that Paul as a follower of Christ would have jumped at the chance to learn from the twelve men who lived with and learned from Jesus in the flesh but that’s not what Paul did. It was a full decade after Jesus’s death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem then he went out preaching and teaching his own gospel in Asia Minor for another ten years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around 50 AD. It was only then 20 years after the crucifixion that Paul
met the rest of the Apostles for the first time.

Paul went to make sure that he (Paul) was preaching the right gospel and found that he was.

Paul did not preach the same thing as the Twelve Apostles and there was constant friction between him and the Jerusalem church about one issue in particular the law. Tensions eventually boiled over and cause Peter and Paul to come to blows.
When Peter visited Antioch he clashed with Paul over whether or not Gentile Christians needed to uphold the law. We only get to hear Paul’s side of the story of course but if we take his epistle at its word the two men came to an agreement. Paul would go forth as an apostle to the Gentiles while Peter would preach to the circumcised but there is a problem there. The agreement which Paul speaks of contradicts the book of Acts which states that Peter not Paul was chosen by God to minister to the Gentiles. In Acts chapter 15 verse 7 Peter said:

“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles

might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.”

~ Acts 15:7

Easlier in Acts we can find the place where Peter was sent to preach to the gentiles, and it was to one family, Cornelius and his family, and others who had gathered at Cornelius's house. (Acts 10:34-43) That was not Peter being told to go to specifically the gentiles and Paul was not to go specifically to the gentiles either.
If you read what Peter had to say in Acts 15, you will see that Peter agrees with Paul about the gospel message.

Nevertheless, Paul claimed to have a different gospel than Peter and the other apostles, the
gospel of the uncircumcised a gospel which he

“Didn’t receive from any man nor was he taught it”

~Galatians 1:12

His gospel came purely from revelation and therefore couldn’t be verified by anyone as truthful and yet Paul’s new gospel spilt the religion of Christianity into two distinct confessions. One rooted in Judaism and a version tailored for the Gentiles. Concluding this chapter of Galatians, Paul argues that his way is the correct way because eventhough Jesus said:

“ Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord,Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the

one who does the will of my Father…”

~ Matthew 7:21

How does any of this show that Paul was preaching a different gospel to the other apostles?
Paul's gospel WAS verified and if you have read the New Testament you should know that, and the decision of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) shows that his gospel was verified by the early church.

 

[GoodAttention]

Correctly said.

Regards

Keep in mind there is more literary “evidence” for the existence of Paul than the 12 disciples.

 

[1213]

It's about Paul because the faith vs works argument focuses on Abraham:

But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:20-21

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:13

Paul shows that faith is related to actions, which is the same as what James is saying. For example the case of Noah, he got the message from God, was faithful to God and that came visible in his actions, when he did the ark. If Noah would say, yes I have faith, but would not have done the ark, he would have died and it could be said, "faith without works is dead".

By faith, Noah, being warned about things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house, through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Heb. 11:7

Because he told them the truth about what actually happened but most people believed that he was crucified. The prophetic context for the crucifixion has a wicked man being crucified and the righteous servant being rescued from that fate.

Was Jesus not rescued, when God raised him from death?

 

[paarsurrey]

Paul a.k.a. Saul of Tarsus

Was Jesus not rescued, when God raised him from death?

One G-d , not Jesus-god or holy ghost god, saved (Jesus)Yeshua from near-death not actual physical/clinical death, kindly correct yourself, please, right?

3:56
When Allah said, ‘O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will exalt thee to Myself, and will clear thee from the charges of those who disbelieve,

Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search

In Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Urdu.

www.alislam.org

Regards
____________________

3:56
اِذۡ قَالَ اللّٰہُ یٰعِیۡسٰۤی اِنِّیۡ مُتَوَفِّیۡکَ وَرَافِعُکَ اِلَیَّ وَمُطَہِّرُکَ مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا وَ

 

[Ebionite]

How come? Were Books of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms not scripture?

They don't support Paul's claim because they describe a righteous servant who was jubilant and was taken from prison and I judgement. A wicked man was crucified but the people believed that he was Jesus. Isaiah 53, Psalm

 

[Ebionite]

Paul is described as foolish in Zechariah 11:15 and proud in Habakkuk 2:5, James calls him foolish and vain. Paul refers to Habakkuk 2:4 re the faith of the just.

 

[Ebionite]

Paul shows that faith is related to actions, which is the same as what James is saying.

If Paul and James were in agreement over doctrine then Paul would have followed James' directions from the Council of Jerusalem, but he only told the Galatians to remember the poor.

Was Jesus not rescued, when God raised him from death?

Isaiah 53 says taken from prison and judgement, crucifixion was after that so he avoided that fate.

 

[PearlSeeker]

They don't support Paul's claim because they describe a righteous servant who was jubilant and was taken from prison and I judgement. A wicked man was crucified but the people believed that he was Jesus. Isaiah 53, Psalm

You said that (what Jesus told in) Luke is not consistent with Paul:

What Jesus told two of his disciples isn't consistent about the crucifixion isn't consistent with Pauline doctrine because there is nothing in the law, prophets, or psalms that supports the idea of him rising from dead on the third day.

I quoted Paul to show that he claims the same thing as (Jesus in) Luke. So it's consistent.

No one, Luke and Paul, cited any exact verses of the third day prophecy. If you pick something and say it's false it's just your pick.

 

[1213]

One G-d , not Jesus-god or holy ghost god, saved (Jesus)Yeshua from near-death not actual physical/clinical death, kindly correct yourself, please, right?

I believe Jesus died and was raised by God from death.

 

[1213]

If Paul and James were in agreement over doctrine then Paul would have followed James' directions from the Council of Jerusalem, but he only told the Galatians to remember the poor.

Is there some good reason to think he could not have said also other things?

Isaiah 53 says taken from prison and judgement, crucifixion was after that so he avoided that fate.

Interesting, I didn't even find the word prison from that. But, if it is not about Jesus (as I think it is), who is the person it is talking about?

 

[Ebionite]

You said that (what Jesus told in) Luke is not consistent with Paul:

The difference is that according to Luke, Jesus said "thus it is written" and his explanation is not included but Paul endorsed the text about resurrection on the third day as being true.

. If you pick something and say it's false it's just your pick.

No, the best match is Hosea 6:2 and it is not about Jesus.

 

[Ebionite]

Is there some good reason to think he could not have said also other things?

Yes, Paul said 'only'. Galatians 2:10

Interesting, I didn't even find the word prison from that. But, if it is not about Jesus (as I think it is), who is the person it is talking about?

The KJV has prison in verse 8 and it is a reasonable translation IMO.

H6115 - ʿōṣer - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

H6115 - עֹצֶר ʻôtser, o'-tser; from ; closure; also constraint:— barren, oppression, prison.

www.blueletterbible.org

Isaiah 53 mentions the righteous servant and the wicked one who was put in the grave. Psalm 22 and 69 are about the wicked one, Psalm 35 is about the righteous servant.

 

[1213]

Yes, Paul said 'only'. Galatians 2:10

And it seems it was the only thing told to be done in that case. Bible don't say in that there were also other things said, but Paul decided to keep just that one.

The KJV has prison in verse 8 and it is a reasonable translation IMO.

H6115 - ʿōṣer - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

H6115 - עֹצֶר ʻôtser, o'-tser; from ; closure; also constraint:— barren, oppression, prison.

www.blueletterbible.org

Isaiah 53 mentions the righteous servant and the wicked one who was put in the grave. Psalm 22 and 69 are about the wicked one, Psalm 35 is about the righteous servant.

Ok, thank you. I don't think it makes any meaningful difference. Jesus was arrested and therefore could have been in prison a short time.

Also, maybe death could be called a prison too.

Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which he also went and preached to the spirits in prison,
1 Pet. 3:18-19

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said:
One G-d , not Jesus-god or holy ghost god, saved (Jesus)Yeshua from near-death not actual physical/clinical death, kindly correct yourself, please, right?

I believe Jesus died and was raised by God from death.

That is just one's (blind) belief, neither reasonable nor reality, please, right?

Regards

 

[Ebionite]

Paulit seems it was the only thing told to be done in that case. Bible don't say in that there were also other things said, but Paul decided to keep just that one.

Argument from ignorance fallacy. James calling Paul the vain man is consistent with Paul's description in Habakkuk 2:5