What do you think of Paul the Apostle?

[Kathryn]

Jesus healed on the Sabbath seven times. The Pharisees are the ones who called him out about healing on the Sabbath. I don't personally care WHEN he healed anyone. But you're the one who doesn't seem to have any concept of the Jewish interpretation of the laws at that time, not me. Sorry. @IndigoChild5559

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hey, all I know is that the Pharisees called Jesus out on it at the time. I think they were trying to catch Him.

Try to remember that these legends had their origins in the Gentile church seeking to distance itself from Judaism and Jews. One of the ways they did that was by inserting into these stories episodes that made the Jews look bad. i think the odds are pretty low that the Pharisees made a stink about Jesus and the Sabbath.

 

[Kathryn]

Try to remember that these legends had their origins in the Gentile church seeking to distance itself from Judaism and Jews. One of the ways they did that was by inserting into these stories episodes that made the Jews look bad. i think the odds are pretty low that the Pharisees made a stink about Jesus and the Sabbath.

OK you believe what you will and I'll believe what I will.

 

[BrightShadow]

AFAIK there is no reason to think that Luke was dishonest. The focus of Acts did transition to support a Pauline focus, but Luke's reporting of the account of Paul being called mad by Festus suggests that Paul didn't have any editorial role in relation to Luke's work.

Are you talking about Acts 26:24?
[Acts 26:24] At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.”

This convinces you that Luke was uninvolved and fair-minded?
It was a teamwork! Slice it whichever way you want!

Whether they realized how much damage they were doing or not - they successfully derailed Jesus Christ's core teachings of "one God" philosophy where God does not beget; nor is he begotten (He is unborn and uncreated, has no parents, wife or offspring)

 

[Ebionite]

Are you talking about Acts 26:24?
[Acts 26:24] At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.”

This convinces you that Luke was uninvolved and fair-minded?
It was a teamwork! Slice it whichever way you want!

Yes, the point is that Luke's account was an honest one. However, as a physician he would probably not have had knowledge relating to the paranormal/spiritual, so his identification of a "Holy Spirit" would have been based on hearsay, probably from Paul.

 

[paarsurrey]

What do you think of Paul the Apostle?

his (Luke's) identification of a "Holy Spirit" would have been based on hearsay, probably from Paul.

Good comments.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What do you think of Paul the Apostle?

The concept of "Resurrection" was introduced by Paul (who never saw Jesus in person. He claimed to have seen Jesus in a dream! Anyone can claim that!

Paul and Companions and his buddies were also the first ones to declare Jesus as the son of God:

Paul changed fundamental teachings of Jesus. He introduced "resurrection" and "divinity" of Jesus into Christianity. Paul also discarded other basic ritual practices such as "circumcision" that Jew men were performing and later adopted back by Muslim men due to teachings of Muhammad.

It was in the Genesis and later reinstated by Muhammad as it can be found in the Sunnah. But Paul in the middle - took it out

All Christians should be aware that Jesus himself was circumcised! So, what authority did Paul have to gradually change that?

What kind of guy was he? He robbed churches? Look at this..
[2 Corinthians 11:8] "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service."

The naïve idea that a mere belief in Jesus automatically guarantees one's place in heaven is in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus as [Matthew 7:21] clearly shows and it makes sense!

[Mathew 7:21] "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

So, the Christians cannot stop following the commandments. But Paul said they can!

Very good points/comments, I rated one's post as "winner".

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What do you think of Paul the Apostle
paarsurrey cherry picking summary to refresh:-

What do you think of Paul the Apostle?

paarsurrey wrote: #20
I get the following from the Jewish Encyclopedia about Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the self-acclaimed/and or unauthorized/fake Apostle of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right?:

SAUL OF TARSUS - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.
www.jewishencyclopedia.com

" having a Revelation of Jesus "

paarsurrey:-(Jesus) Yeshua never claimed to have authored/written/dictate the "Book of Revelation", did he, please?
If yes, then please, quote from him in first person and in an ambiguous, unequivocal and clear terms, please, right?

Paul lied about being appointed as a minister and witness while on the road to Damascus (Acts 26, Acts 9) and there is circumstantial evidence that Paul was one of the liars & false apostles that were rejected at Ephesus (Revelation 2:2, Acts 19:9).

What do you think of Paul the Apostle?

That he isn't an Apostle.

Very briefly, Paul is probably the worst character in the NT, bar none. He was a pathological liar as he admitted in Rom 3:7, and also claimed he was not lying when others blamed him (1 Tim 2:7, Rom 9;1, 2 Cor 11:31, Galatians 1:20).
He never met and was never taught by Jesus. Perhaps he thought so when he was frequently put into a state of ecstasy, due to his epilepsy. All his limited knowledge came from the disciples in several days and immediately started preaching (Acts 9:19-21). And he had the audacity to curse the people who taught him. All he cared was how to convert as many people, by any means.
Extremely vague on purpose, he offered different types of salvation, depending on whom he was addressing. By works, by faith alone and predetermined. Most of his companions abandoned him.

I believe that the Johannine community, who probably wrote the Revelation (John supposedly established the first Christian community in Ephesus) had Paul in mind when they wrote in Rev 2:1-2 " To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: .....I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear evil men but have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and found them to be false".

Compare the above with his epistles to Timothy who was in Ephesus....1 Tim 2:7 (For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle, I am telling the truth, I am not lying) and 2 Tim 1:15 (You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes).

paarsurrey wrote:
One's post is very good , I like it.

Just to add that Saul of Tarsus aka Paul never "converted" to the religion that (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), followed ,please, right?
Paul was a Hellenist and remained as such even after, as I understand, he faked a vision, rather he converted Yeshua's simple minded followers to Hellenism (of dying, rising god)*, please, right?

Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia
DRG : Dying and rising gods

Eli G said:
So, that's your problem with Paul. Thanks for your honesty.

Interestingly, that's one of Jews' pretext to reject Jesus.

Do you also reject Jesus like you reject Paul?

I assume you will now provide a complete list of what you believe are such pretexts as well as a complete list of what you perceive to be the real reason(s) that Jews do not accept Jesus.

It is a good question from our @Eli G , to our @RabbiO , please, right?
I however accept (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaic people aka Jews ), please, right?
Pauline-Christendom (as seen in NT Bible,) I understand, does not present Yeshua's deeds and teachings, right, please?

Best regards

So, that's your problem with Paul. Thanks for your honesty.

Interestingly, that's one of Jews' pretext to reject Jesus.

Do you also reject Jesus like you reject Paul?

" one of Jews' pretext to reject Jesus. "
Judaism people at the time of Yeshua got deviant from the truthful Israeli teachings and deeds of Moses, so they rejected Yeshua; it is for this that Yeshua migrated from Judea and went to land/s where diaspora "/ Lost Tribes of Israel" resided, with his Mother Mary (she later joined him), and they- the diaspora "/ Lost Tribes of Israel"- did accept Yeshua's truthful teachings and deeds, please, right?
The above becomes clear even from Pauline-NT Bible, if seen in correct prospect, right, please? Best regards

It can be said church is den of liars, thieves and hypocrites.

paarsurrey wrote:
Is it really?

Paul was false apostle.

Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I get the following from the Jewish Encyclopedia about Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the self-acclaimed/and or unauthorized/fake Apostle of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), please, right?:

SAUL OF TARSUS - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.
www.jewishencyclopedia.com

Yeah, I clicked on your link, and it mentions nothing about Yeshua being the truthful Israelite Messiah, or zealots, or Zionism. That's just YOU talking.

BTW, it is common courtesy that if you want to make a point using a website, you don't just give the link. You quote that specific part that you want to draw attention to, placing it within quote marks. It is unreasonable to expect someone to read an entire article, much less to read your mind and know exactly what it is on that website that makes your point.

*Mod edit*

 

[Coder]

RE: OP

Rabbi Singer speaks of several errors and misquotes of Jewish Scriptures that Paul uses in the New Testament. I think that the idea is that one or more of them are intentionally misleading.

I think Paul was motivated to start the new religion in Rome, and perhaps he was less concerned if his methods weren't quite honest.

As a founder, he was of course named a "saint".

The idea that he had visions and was suddenly an apostle who is working with conversion of non-Jews, appears contrived to me and others (as does some of the New Testament in general). Even though the NT shows Jesus as messiah, I'm not convinced that Jesus ever declared himself to be the messiah and the messiah concept was not the bulk of his teachings. This tells me that the messiah concept was another adaptation for unified religion in Roman Empire. The Jewish people didn't accept it, and they didn't accept the trinity teaching.

Overall, I think Paul was working with the Romans. He may have considered that he had good reasons. I don't believe the story about a vision and self-declaring oneself an apostle.

 

[GoodAttention]

RE: OP

Rabbi Singer speaks of several errors and misquotes of Jewish Scriptures that Paul uses in the New Testament. I think that the idea is that one or more of them are intentionally misleading.

I think Paul was motivated to start the new religion in Rome, and perhaps he was less concerned if his methods weren't quite honest.

As a founder, he was of course named a "saint".

The idea that he had visions and was suddenly an apostle who is working with conversion of non-Jews, appears contrived to me and others (as does some of the New Testament in general). Even though the NT shows Jesus as messiah, I'm not convinced that Jesus ever declared himself to be the messiah and the messiah concept was not the bulk of his teachings. This tells me that the messiah concept was another adaptation for unified religion in Roman Empire. The Jewish people didn't accept it, and they didn't accept the trinity teaching.

I think it’s brave to think an off-shoot of Judaism would be a unifying religion for Rome, especially with the persecutions. I think many Hellenized Jews would have wanted to accept what Paul was feeding them since the revolts and zealots was making all the provinces unstable.

Overall, I think Paul was working with the Romans. He may have considered that he had good reasons. I don't believe the story about a vision and self-declaring oneself an apostle.

Which Romans? He was working with the Jewish diaspora who were Roman citizens but ordinary Romans I’m not sure. I don’t think any of his letters are from before the revolt or the destruction of the Temple, meaning he was someone attempting to keep a faith in God not knowing how that was going to happen.

The Jewish community was lost, but as much as Paul was wrong he did it for the right reasons.

 

[paarsurrey]

What do you think of Paul the Apostle?

RE: OP

Rabbi Singer speaks of several errors and misquotes of Jewish Scriptures that Paul uses in the New Testament. I think that the idea is that one or more of them are intentionally misleading.

I think Paul was motivated to start the new religion in Rome, and perhaps he was less concerned if his methods weren't quite honest.

As a founder, he was of course named a "saint".

The idea that he had visions and was suddenly an apostle who is working with conversion of non-Jews, appears contrived to me and others (as does some of the New Testament in general). Even though the NT shows Jesus as messiah, I'm not convinced that Jesus ever declared himself to be the messiah and the messiah concept was not the bulk of his teachings. This tells me that the messiah concept was another adaptation for unified religion in Roman Empire. The Jewish people didn't accept it, and they didn't accept the trinity teaching.

Overall, I think Paul was working with the Romans. He may have considered that he had good reasons. I don't believe the story about a vision and self-declaring oneself an apostle.

Paul was working with the Romans

as a spy, some say?:

"It is not beyond likelihood that the Romans were gathering intelligence on ‘agitators’ via Jewish sources throughout this period. Saul could indeed have been one of their spies—such a métier certainly fits his profile.
As a Pharisee, Saul the ‘persecutor’ was well placed to mingle with others of his sect"

Was Saul (Apostle Paul) a Roman spy?

Answer (1 of 3): That Saul during his early career might have been in the employ of the Roman authorities is a fascinating topic for speculation. Grass-roots Jewish apocalyptic movements like those of John the Baptizer, Jesus the Nazarene and James the Just would certainly have been an overridin...

www.quora.com

Regards

 

[Coder]

I think it’s brave to think an off-shoot of Judaism would be a unifying religion for Rome, especially with the persecutions. I think many Hellenized Jews would have wanted to accept what Paul was feeding them since the revolts and zealots was making all the provinces unstable.



Which Romans? He was working with the Jewish diaspora who were Roman citizens but ordinary Romans I’m not sure. I don’t think any of his letters are from before the revolt or the destruction of the Temple, meaning he was someone attempting to keep a faith in God not knowing how that was going to happen.

The Jewish community was lost, but as much as Paul was wrong he did it for the right reasons.

You may some good points here, and thank you. I tend the think that the Roman empire was more involved at some level than you do. The Roman government would have been well aware of the many various Churches in the wide areas. It may have been a bit under the radar. I'd like to learn more.

The real work today, is to solve the results of people looking so shallowly at the Bible and failing to see that it served a purpose in a time and a place. The authentic teachings of Jesus have lasting value, of course.

As far as wrong for right reasons, Paul teaches not to do wrong (evil) so that good may result. (Apparently, he didn't practice what he preached?).

 

[GoodAttention]

You may some good points here, and thank you. I tend the think that the Roman empire was more involved at some level than you do. The Roman government would have been well aware of the many various Churches in the wide areas. It may have been a bit under the radar. I'd like to learn more.

The real work today, is to solve the results of people looking so shallowly at the Bible and failing to see that it served a purpose in a time and a place. The authentic teachings of Jesus have lasting value, of course.

I think Christians need to focus on their scriptures and leave the Hebrew texts to the Jews. This move to put the 10 commandments in schools is completely baffling when Jesus talks about his teachings fulfilling the commandments in Matthew, but I get the don’t divorce your spouse isn’t one that is followed.

As far as wrong for right reasons, Paul teaches not to do wrong (evil) so that good may result. (Apparently, he didn't practice what he preached?).

Exactly. He was wrong because he knew he engaged in fraud but at least it was pious, so not evil to him. The diaspora were already distant from Jerusalem before the Temple was destroyed so Jews like him would have been even more anxious.

 

[Coder]

What do you think of Paul the Apostle?


as a spy, some say?:

"It is not beyond likelihood that the Romans were gathering intelligence on ‘agitators’ via Jewish sources throughout this period. Saul could indeed have been one of their spies—such a métier certainly fits his profile.
As a Pharisee, Saul the ‘persecutor’ was well placed to mingle with others of his sect"

Was Saul (Apostle Paul) a Roman spy?

Answer (1 of 3): That Saul during his early career might have been in the employ of the Roman authorities is a fascinating topic for speculation. Grass-roots Jewish apocalyptic movements like those of John the Baptizer, Jesus the Nazarene and James the Just would certainly have been an overridin...

www.quora.com

Regards

Yes, something along those lines makes sense. A bit similar what GoodAttention was saying. Paul's biggest convincing may have been of the empire itself. And now I think that we have the religious artifacts that people seem to misunderstand. The Jewish people certainly didn't accept this new form of so-called monotheism. Now we have Romans 11:25. I don't think that's right.

And this problem still goes on today:

God Gave Israel Its Spiritual Blindness, Part 1 (Romans Sermon 82)

Individual sinners can blind themselves, but in the case of Israel it is God who made them spiritually blind for his own purposes.

twojourneys.org

 

[GoodAttention]

Yes, something along those lines makes sense. A bit similar what GoodAttention was saying. Paul's biggest sale may have been of the empire itself, to keep peace though, and now I think that we have the religious artifacts that people seem to misunderstand. The Jewish people certainly didn't accept this new form of so-called monotheism. Then the said the Jews were "blind" etc. That's not right.

Look at this! A so-called "Christian" website in 2024!! We have so much work to do to educate the public.

God Gave Israel Its Spiritual Blindness, Part 1 (Romans Sermon 82)

Individual sinners can blind themselves, but in the case of Israel it is God who made them spiritually blind for his own purposes.

twojourneys.org

I think it attempts to balance the Christian complex that Jews still reject Jesus with the Christian faith in God’s plan.

 

[Coder]

I think it attempts to balance the Christian complex that Jews still reject Jesus with the Christian faith in God’s plan.

It's not a good "balance", IMO.

I think that it's this kind of thing that shows that Christianity became something new and no longer a Jewish movement. And I believe that this is a serious error, not of Judaism, but of Christianity. So, I am no one to judge Paul's actions but the results concern me rather than impress me.

 

[GoodAttention]

It's not a good "balance".

I agree, Christianity should stand on its own two feet without mentioning Jews or Judaism in a condescending way.

 

[Coder]

I agree, Christianity should stand on its own two feet without mentioning Jews or Judaism in a condescending way.

Extremely insightful and well said.

 

[paarsurrey]

I agree, Christianity should stand on its own two feet without mentioning Jews or Judaism in a condescending way.

Christians are a good people, one must acknowledge that, yet Pauline-Christendom aka Christianity (which never acquired any reasoning from Yeshua), one understands, can never stand on its two feet, as long as its Pauline concept of "god in flesh" is without bones just a lump, unable to stand on its own two feet, please, right?
Christianity needs reformation.

Regards