Was Saul Of Tarsus (paul) A Real Apostle?

[Guest The Mercury Symbol]

Mercury,

 

Tough crowd huh?

 

I appreciate your comments.

No worries man. It's cool that you can keep the emotionalism out of your posts. Thanks for responding to mine.

 

 

Here is the problem I have with this.

First, if god is that smart and wanted me to understand him then he either could have made me with a greater ability to understand him or conversely god could condescend to our level so we can better understand him.

 

As it is, I'm always confronted with having to trust a fellow human (dead or alive) who claims to represent god. To me that sucks.

From my reading of Scripture, there's no question that God wants us to have more faith than understanding. However, if Scripture is to be true, God did come down to our level as Jesus Christ.

 

It is difficult to believe the Bible at times. Sometimes I think I could be wasting my whole life on some lie. But I do see a good argument for the Bible as far as fullfiled prophecy and acheological discoveries go. Though I would never say this proves God's exsistence, it does give the Bible a lot of credence for myself.

 

Since god reveals himself through people, I find myself at odds with the credibility of gods 'agents'.

One would argue that he completely revealed His nature in Jesus Christ, who was a God-man. But it is difficult believing fallible man.

 

And, to paraphrase Bart Ehrman, if god reveals himself through his word, god has done a terrible job of perserving it.

I dont know if I can agree with that statement simply based on the shear number of manuscripts which some can be dated as close to as 120 A.D. As far as ancient manuscripts are concerned, the Bible is by far the best preserved... Though I'm sure this will be argued.

 

As to "personal" proof... it goes back to my other post where I mention that all experiences in religion can always be found in a competing religion.

 

We have tongue talkers, holy ghost people and all sorts here who say their experiences were all lather, no soap.

 

It ends up being a "he says, she says" argument and ultimately each one of us is responsible to themselves to be honest with themselves and desire to understand what is true more than want something something to be true for another reason.

I don't really put much stock in a lot of that stuff. I know that I've had personal expeirences with God, but I would never submit them to you as though it were proof or truth.

 

What separates Christianity from every other religion is the fact that God has done everything for us, and all we have to do is believe. I don't think that there's any other religion out there that has that as it's theological base. Even the cults of Christianity differ on this.

[PandaPirate]

Ok...

 

Apostle Paul didn't even know Yeshua (Jesus) in person. He claims, that Jesus appeared to him on his way to Damascus.

 

Now here's the fallacy:

 

Paul's writings contradict everything the Gospels stand for. This "apostle" says, that people couldn't possibly obey the law, and that obeying it doesn't solve the problem of sin. Sorry, but it does, cause you're just not doing it anymore.

 

Oh sure, you may screw up here and there, but the word "sinner" is only used for a person who does continuous sin. The person who makes an art of sin is a sinner.

 

Jesus said, that faith (in Him) and works (obeying the law to the best of your ability) get you in to Heaven. Apostle Paul said, that faith alone does it.

 

Apostle Paul actually taught against the Torah (the Jewish law).

 

 

Paul sure had a backward view of Christian morality.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Paul was a rambling lunatic.

[Neon Genesis]

This is why Abraham was faithful. He knew that Issac was the seed in which God would fulfill His promises. Abraham probably didn't know what God was doing, but He trused God because Abrham had faith in who God is.

You mean like how Jephthath trusted God? Judges 11:2-40 says:

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, 31 then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.â€

32 So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his hands. 33 And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith—twenty cities—and to Abel Keramim,[a] with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel. 34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it.â€

36 So she said to him, “My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon.†37 Then she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I.â€

38 So he said, “Go.†And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. 39 And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man.

And it became a custom in Israel 40 that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

So, what was God doing in those verses and why is this just? And why is it moral to trick your son into thinking you're going to murder him as long as the whole thing is pretend? Abraham might not have actually murdered his son, but you know no sane person would place the care of their child in the hands of such a lunatic in modern times because it's clear to modern humans that Abraham's actions would be considered at the least emotional child abuse in modern times. So, why isn't it considered child abuse for Abraham just because God said so? Do you think murdering children is justified as long as God said to do it?

 

Often God will ask us to give up the things we hold most precious to Him so that what is most precious to us is Him.

So, do you admit that you would kill your child if God told you to? Why do you think it's moral to commit infanticide just because God said so?

 

Why would Paul want converts of a religion he despised? If you know anything about the Jewish Orthodoxy you would understand the point I made. Paul wouldn't forsake all that he believed and worked to become just to have converts of a religion he wanted to destroy.

First you must prove that Paul actually existed as a historical character and is not just a made-up fairytale character. Second, if you can prove that you must then prove that the bible is a an accurate historical document of real life events.

 

So I can't use the Bible to prove that it is real? Do you hold all books that make truth claims to the same standard?

Do you believe everything total strangers tell you just because they said it was true?

 

Circumcision was given to remind God's people of His convenant with them.

That doesn't change the fact that it was a direct commandment from God that was supposed to carry out and it still doesn't change the fact that Paul is still preaching against this commandment.

 

Yes. He twisited the OT to do his bidding so he could be beating, hated, scorned, ship-wrecked and eventually beheaded.

Again, you must prove that Paul existed as a real person in history. Oh, last I checked, that stuff about Paul being beheaded is nowhere in the bible and is purely fictional Christian legend with no historical evidence whatsoever.

[mwc]

I never asked you to accept anything I said. I just wanted have a discussion about the subject. I don't understand why your so hostile about something you say you do not believe and towards someone you don't know.

Oh, but you did ask me accept what you said. You wanted me to simply accept Paul as you accept Paul and go from there. I don't and that makes your work that much more difficult. So you ignore my objections, no matter how they're voiced, and continue on in your discourse. That tends to get me a bit "hostile."

 

Your the first person I've ever heard claim that Paul wasn't an authority on the OT.

Then you have a rather small circle you frequent. Actually, based on your other thread, the circle you frequent would dare not say Paul wasn't an authority on anything.

 

Paul also got the original apostles to bless his ministry. So apparently they believed that Paul had a vision considering they wouldn't even have gave him an audience had it not been for Barnabus.

Based on Acts. A written after the fact by anyone's guess. But what does Paul say on the subject?

Galations

1:17 And I went not up to Jerusalem to those who were Apostles before me; but I went away into Arabia, and again I came back to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Cephas, and was there with him fifteen days. 19 But of the other Apostles I saw only James, the Lord's brother. 20 Now God is witness that the things which I am writing to you are true.

Powerful stuff. Something happened. He blows off the "apostles." Eventually he see Cephas for a couple weeks a James. "God" vouches for him. Oh boy. Where's Barnabas in all this? Nowhere in his story so far...

 

2:1 Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation; and I put before them the good news which I was preaching among the Gentiles, but privately before those who were of good name, so that the work which I was or had been doing might not be without effect.

...

6 But from those who seemed to be important (whatever they were has no weight with me: God does not take man's person into account): those who seemed to be important gave nothing new to me; 7 But, quite the opposite, when they saw that I had been made responsible for preaching the good news to those without circumcision, even as Peter had been for those of the circumcision 8 (Because he who was working in Peter as the Apostle of the circumcision was working no less in me among the Gentiles); 9 When they saw the grace which was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who had the name of being pillars, gave to me and Barnabas their right hands as friends so that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision; 10 Only it was their desire that we would give thought to the poor; which very thing I had much in mind to do.

So, so far so good. This time Barny is with him (but he still has nothing to do with getting him a meeting) and Titus. He meets some folks that he could really care less what they have to say and then gets a handshake deal from the "pillars."

 

But was it really solved? All tied up with a little bow as Acts would have us believe?

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I made a protest against him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men came from James, he did take food with the Gentiles: but when they came, he went back and made himself separate, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews went after him, so that even Barnabas was overcome by their false ways.

Nope. Paul keeps going. On and on he whines. Blah, blah. Which is odd because Cephas is one that "blessed" his ministry. And the people from James show and Barnabas fears them. Why? He was involved in the "blessing" as well. Both from Cephas and James. If the ministry is "blessed" then why the "fear?" Why is Cephas also acting as if he is unaware of the deal they all just made? If this really is the Jerusalem accord from Acts then something isn't quite right.

 

Yes. He twisited the OT to do his bidding so he could be beating, hated, scorned, ship-wrecked and eventually beheaded.

People will all sort of things for all sorts of reasons (and you can prove he was beheaded?).

 

Why don't you compare/contrast the following:

Romans 10

 

5 For Moses says that the man who does the righteousness which is of the law will get life by it. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith says these words, Say not in your heart, Who will go up to heaven? (that is, to make Christ come down:) 7 Or, Who will go down into the deep? (that is, to make Christ come again from the dead:) 8 But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart: that is, the word of faith of which we are the preachers:

 

Deuteronomy 30

 

10 If you give ear to the voice of the Lord your God, keeping his orders and his laws which are recorded in this book of the law, and turning to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

 

11 For these orders which I have given you today are not strange and secret, and are not far away. 12 They are not in heaven, for you to say, Who will go up to heaven for us and give us knowledge of them so that we may do them? 13 And they are not across the sea, for you to say, Who will go over the sea for us and give us news of them so that we may do them? 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may do it.

 

Anyhow, this is taking up far too much of my time for you to just say "Paul big time good guy."

 

mwc

[Mongo]

Ok...

 

Apostle Paul didn't even know Yeshua (Jesus) in person. He claims, that Jesus appeared to him on his way to Damascus.

 

Now here's the fallacy:

 

Paul's writings contradict everything the Gospels stand for. This "apostle" says, that people couldn't possibly obey the law, and that obeying it doesn't solve the problem of sin. Sorry, but it does, cause you're just not doing it anymore.

 

Oh sure, you may screw up here and there, but the word "sinner" is only used for a person who does continuous sin. The person who makes an art of sin is a sinner.

 

Jesus said, that faith (in Him) and works (obeying the law to the best of your ability) get you in to Heaven. Apostle Paul said, that faith alone does it.

 

Apostle Paul actually taught against the Torah (the Jewish law).

 

 

Paul sure had a backward view of Christian morality.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Odin,

 

Back to your OP...

 

I think you make a good point that the bible itself indicates that Paul hijacked the early church.

 

A lot of people here question the very existance of a historical Jesus. I find that hard to accept as I see mythical and other larger than life stories as having some sort of genesis in real life.

 

Observation and well researched history of people/events shows clearly that as time goes by stories passed from one to another person are exaggerated from one generation to the next.

 

Heck, testamony time at my church was another eye opener for me. I have a relative that used to tell these fantastic stories at bible study and church. Everything she said was the mostest and bestest and (of course) she was the worstest sinner. Well, maybe I exaggerate a wee bit. Nonetheless, I saw gaps between what she recalled and what I saw as actual events. I started listening more carefully to what others said and noticed people err on the side of bigger rather than smaller miracles. What is interesting is that when you listen to people recount another person's testamony... that's when it really blows out of proportion. When you consider that this is the dynamic in an age that had very little paper and few people who could write, that were distributed all over the place, you can really see how stories of a historical Jesus who did magic tricks and talked obscurely could become saviour like.

 

Then... some time later, Paul comes along and hears these exaggerated stories of Jesus and finds some personal satisfaction in them. Maybe there was some sort of revelation or even some sort of a vision. Maybe it even happened on the Road to Damascus. This is not so different than anything I've heard xtians today report. It is also fair to assume that if there is a basis for these stories, that Paul exaggerated his conversion as well as his persecution. Ever watch Jimmy Swaggart???!!!

 

Paul then provided leadership and organization that was sorely missing in the flagging religion. He also provided doctrine.

 

I don't find that conceeding any of that makes the Paul or Jesus stories and writings credible as fact.

 

For whatever reason, we have come through the school system with the idea that historical accounts are generally true. This is probably because 2-3 hours of history each week can only stick to the bare facts and doesn't give us time to understand how much of history is true and how much is false or simply unreliable.

 

Appologists love to point to Aristotle or Plato and remark on how non-believers take what is written about these people at face value. It is an interesting point but it merely causes me to realize that these are just stories by fallable people and are subject to prejudice and exaggeration.

 

That's how I sort through this. Others?

 

Mongo

[centauri]

God never gave the law expecting us to follow every aspect perfectly, but to bring us to His grace in Christ Jesus.

 

But the Hebrew scriptures do not support this notion.

The isn't anything which states that an expected messiah would be the end of the law as Paul claimed.

The law wasn't beyond obeying, as Moses told the people.

Deut 30:8-11(NIV)

You will again obey the LORD and follow all his commands I am giving you today.

Then the LORD your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The LORD will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your fathers,

if you obey the LORD your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.

 

The law provides salvation and blessings, even though Paul claimed it was a curse.

The law provided for atonement of sins without any need for a human sacrifice.

 

he[Paul] didn't teach against the Torah, as a matter of fact, he often quoted it in his epistles. He taught against the notion of being able to follow the law into salvation.

 

To say that Paul didn't teach against the Torah is quite a reach.

Paul taught that circumcision wasn't important, he taught against the dietary restrictions, and he promoted that faith in a vicarious human sacrifice replaced the need to obey the law.

Following the law is the way to salvation according to the Hebrew scriptures.

Each person would be responsible for their own sin and could redeem themselves by repenting and obeying the law.

Ezek 18:20-27

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Yet ye say, The way of the LORD is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?

When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

 

The same theme is also expressed in the following:

Faith in a "messiah" doesn't save you, obeying the law is the vehicle to blessings.

 

Psa 119:1-4

Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.

Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.

They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.

Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.

[Antlerman]

Mercury,

And, to paraphrase Bart Ehrman, if god reveals himself through his word, god has done a terrible job of perserving it.

I dont know if I can agree with that statement simply based on the shear number of manuscripts which some can be dated as close to as 120 A.D. As far as ancient manuscripts are concerned, the Bible is by far the best preserved... Though I'm sure this will be argued.

I don't know where to begin, so I'll just start here. You just started talking about technical matters in support of NT accurracy, against one of the more authoritiative NT scholars there is. Here's a couple facts about Bart Ehrman (I think you'll recognize Moody Bible Institute in there):

Ehrman began studying the Bible and its original languages at the Moody Bible Institute and is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois. He received his Ph.D and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He currently serves as the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He was the President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, and worked closely as an editor on a number of the Society's publications. Currently, he co-edits the series New Testament Tools and Studies.

 

Here's a lecture you need to spend some time listening to. He's not in any way out to "prove the bible wrong". He's simply a scholar talking about the facts of how the Bible was transmitted. I think he'll deal with your argument of "shear number of manuscripts" and "best preserved" in a way that's *realistic*, instead of wishful and distorted. It's not a disrespectful look at the Bible. It's real scholarship.

 

Links to videos here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=21093 (It's 10 videos, but one lecture).

 

You say you're open to being proved wrong. I don't care to pursue that. I rather you say you're open to learning and listening, then we have reason for dialog. Give those a listen then come back and we can talk about the rest of your thoughts.