• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Apostle Paul was the anti-christ according to the first Christians

Simplelogic

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
The Christian love affair with Paul is rooted in very poor logic. Paul never knew Yeshua. This is just a plain fact. Paul was never one of the 12 apostles…this is also a fact. For more on the twelve see: How Many Apostles of Jesus Christ are in the Bible

Many are quick to point out Paul's "pro law" statements. They think that even though Paul rails against the law hundreds of times, he should somehow be saved by his few pro law verses. This is intellectual suicide at its best. Its also a misrepresentation of Paul's views on the Torah itself. Paul believed in a higher law which is a spiritualized version of the Torah. He calls it the "law of Christ". Basically it means your inner conscience. Paul taught that obedience was not black and white but what was most expedient for the believer.

Paul is quick to call out Peter and James in his letters. We are so use to reading with a Pauline bias that we forget who the actual ones were who KNEW YESHUA. We also never hear the other side to Paul's arguments. We do see what happens in the end for Paul. Believing Jews (in Yeshua) from Asia tell James and the apostles what Paul had been doing all over Asia (teaching against the Law). James confronts Paul on the issue and orders him to offer animal sacrifices to prove this isn't true, which Paul does!! Even though Paul taught against animal sacrifices and the Temple!! Paul is then arrested because he was associated with Trophimus, a gentile who entered the Temple because of Paul's doctrines. James never comes to Paul's rescue…..the end.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
1robin said:
The first Christians were the apostles. They unanimously agreed that Paul was commissioned by Christ and faithfully recorded the Gospel truth.​
Click to expand...


That is not correct in any way.


His real fishermen apostles probably never met Paul and may not have even known Koine, as they were Aramaic speaking.

There was a house in Jerusalem though, that may have had Hellenist holding on to more traditional Judaism more tightly then Paul though, due to geographic location.

Christianity is something that evolved, no one was a Christian early on.

This movement developed in the Diaspora far away from Galilee, and had more to do with Proselytes and Gentiles then the Judaism it plagiarized.
 
1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Simplelogic said:
No they didn't
Click to expand...
That's a declaration not an argument. I can't even imagine what your saying they did not do. Entire scriptural passages are emphatic about this very issue and every single one ends up validating Paul. What is it they didn't do?

1st Century Biblical Sources
With respect to the 1st century Biblical evidence concerning Paul we have Paul’s writings (Romans; 1 & 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 & 2 Thessalonians; 1 & 2 Timothy; Titus; and Philemon), the history of the 1st century church known as “Acts” or “Acts of the Apostles,” and a Christian epistle known as 2 Peter. So, with respect to 1st century Biblical writings we have Paul’s epistles as well as two other independent documents to work with. All of the 1st century Biblical sources that mention Paul affirm that Paul was a genuine Apostle. None of them question that.
All through out the book of Acts we see Paul identified as a true Apostle. And so we could quote numerous passages affirming this from Acts. However, one striking feature is that in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council Paul played a leading role with the other Apostles such as James and Peter in answering the question about Gentiles being under the law. As the council was in session we see the following:
“And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” (Acts 15:12)
Paul and Barnabas spoke after Peter (vv. 7-11) and right before James (vv. 13-21) who concluded the council and gave the final decision that Gentiles are not under the law. This demonstrates that there was 1st century recognition of Paul’s acceptance by the early church and by the Apostles themselves as an authoritative voice.
The book 2 Peter is rejected by many liberal scholars and Muslims but there is a strong case for its authority and for Petrine authorship.(2) This text is another 1st century source that not only affirms that Paul was a true Apostle, but it also identifies Paul’s writings as Scripture:
"15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16)
The best case scenario is that Peter wrote this and is accepting Paul. I believe this is the case. The worst case scenario is that this is another independent 1st century attestation affirming the reliability of Paul which we can add to the list. Even if it were not from Peter, it is still an early attestation which was accepted by the church and even added to the Canon of Scripture. Historians look for the earliest 1st century writings when it comes to Jesus and early Christianity. That there are no early 1st century writings asserting that Paul was a false Apostle discredits the Muslim position severely. The historical principles of early sources and multiple independent attestation is thus met with respect to 1st century Biblical evidence for Paul.
If Paul was a true Apostle we would expect his own letters to confirm that this was so. It must be asked: is there anything in Paul’s writings that historians would accept as proving that he was genuine? There are many things to consider. For example it is important to consider the principle of embarrassment which is the principle that something or someone is more likely to be authentic if there are embarrassing themes that you wouldn’t expect to be openly talked about. We see that Paul was quite open about his shortcomings, disputes with other Apostles, and his flaws. Such things persuade historians of Paul’s integrity and honesty, and thus his claims to apostleship gain credibility.
The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship: And a Critique of Muslim Arguments
 
Last edited:
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
1robin said:
the history of the 1st century church known as “Acts” or “Acts of the Apostles,”
Click to expand...

Is not all that credible.

Its historical value is still debated because it contradicts what Paul himself tells us.

It is steeped in deep rhetoric and should not be trusted in any way as accurate history without professional study..
 
1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
outhouse said:
Is not all that credible.

Its historical value is still debated because it contradicts what Paul himself tells us.

It is steeped in deep rhetoric and should not be trusted in any way as accurate history without professional study..
Click to expand...
That is a whole other issue. I was not giving evidence for the historical veracity for Paul's writing but for his acceptance among the first Christians. I can easily defend Paul's writings historically (it is probably the easiest NT writings to do so), but that was not the issue I responded to.
 
1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
outhouse said:
Because the unknown author of Luke/Acts was a Hellenist promoting Paul. And he never met or knew even Paul.
Click to expand...
That is virtually the exact opposite of what modern scholarship claims. Luke has been claimed to be as good a historical resource as any historian ever recorded. Luke's claims have embarrassed it's critics and has even converted one of the historians who set out to disprove it once and for all. Not that Paul's authority rests on Luke anyway.

The Original Apostles confirmed Paul’s Gospel and Apostleship
The 1st century historical documentation on this issue also shows that fourteen years after the Jerusalem affair with Peter and James in Galatians 1:15-19 Paul then went back to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus. According to the 1st century data Paul says the pillars of the church (James, Peter and John) “added nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). This means that the original Apostles of Jesus added no correction to Paul’s Gospel message which he was preaching after the Jerusalem affair in A.D. 35. Hence, the original Apostles affirmed what Paul was preaching – namely Jesus’ crucifixion as a sacrifice for sins and His resurrection as orthodox theology. Moreover, James, Peter and John all extended their right hand of fellowship to Paul after seeing Paul’s grace (Gal. 2:9). This extremely early data (A.D. 49-54) is a severe blow to the anti-Pauline crowd since it adds one more attestation to the conclusive 1st century case for Paul’s reliability and apostleship. It must be stressed over and over, because it is important, that there is no clear 1st century documentation to the contrary asserting that Paul was not a true Apostle who was close to the original Apostles or that he had a false message. With respect to scholarship’s view on this issue the secular historian William Durant states:
“No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh.”(22)
The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship: And a Critique of Muslim Arguments
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Simplelogic said:
Paul the false apostle
Paul a liar
Paul
Yeshua's prophecy concerning Peter
Who was the 12th Apostle
The Law stands
Click to expand...
Simplelogic said:
Jesus.on.Church.Structure
Paul's Contradictions of Jesus
Jesus On Paul The Least
James versus Paul
Click to expand...
Simplelogic said:
Proofs that Paul did not truly meet Jesus outside Damascus
Click to expand...
Simplelogic said:
Paul Misquotes of Scripture
Click to expand...
So, when are you and the other three members of the "Popular Front of Judea" going to pull on your Big-Boy Credibility Pants and amaze us all with some actual... I dunno... scholarship, or something?
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
1robin said:
That is virtually the exact opposite of what modern scholarship claims.
Click to expand...

No it is not. Your parroting apologist not scholars.


1robin said:
Luke's claims have embarrassed it's critics and has even converted one of the historians who set out to disprove it once and for all. Not that Paul's authority rests on Luke anyway.
Click to expand...

Not even a coherent proposition.

No one is trying to say it is false.


But you obviously ignore the unknown author had to plagiarize gmark because he knew so little about the real mans life.
 
1robin

1robin

Christian/Baptist
outhouse said:
That source is laughable at best, it is an embarrassment that you pulled up Islamic studies with no credibility on the topic what so ever.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? It was not Islamic material, it was a scholarly response to common Islamic claims. Since you basically hold a position on this issue in common with Islam it was applicable. There is no justifiable way to dismiss Paul which is why your not even attempting to, your just making proclamations that defy any historical conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top