Did Paul champion the Cause of Christ or corrupt it?

[Audie]

I had assumed we all made assumptions that we hadn’t fully questioned. Of course that could be just another unquestioned assumption on my part lol.

A strength of RF is we are exposed to different perspectives that causes us to reflect on our own.



Acts of the apostles 28:1-6 records the story of Paul being shipwrecked on an island later thought to be the island of Malta. As you quite rightly point out there are no poisonous snakes on Malta, nor are there any records of such.

I include links from a sceptic and Christian denomination (Catholic) that address the issue. For me it is not a deal breaker but provides a good opportunity to consider the authorship of Acts, when it was written and the likely sources of information.

St. Paul and the Malta Snakes | Catholic Answers

Opinion



Baha’is and Christians both believe in the God of Abraham and His capacity to perform miracles.

There are of course limitations as to credibility of course.

Literal interpretation of genesis to conclude a young earth goes against all the accepted science that strongly argues the earth to be over 4 billion years old. Therefore a more credible explanation is necessary.

There is much allegory and symbolism in the bible so even what appears to be historical narrative may not be.

The link is from an outfit that unquestioningly assumes
the story is true, and explores different ways to make it true.


The non exidtence of "vipers" there is only one
of several of the details that make for a phony
story.

If you look at it from the pov of the stoty being a complete
fake, what does that say about "paul"?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I would say Paul did not live directly with Christ as a disciple and able to interact with him. He only read and heard about him, and this will obviously position him in a plane where he is bound to understand Jesus through his own concepts, theories, prejudices and understanding, imho.

In Hinduism, great importance is given to direct relationship and company with the Master so as to connect with the life principle in him, rather than just read books or hear about him.

Imo.

However the apostle Peter was a disciple of Jesus, and Jesus appointed Peter to lead His church (Matthew 16:18). Peter in turn affirmed the truth of what Paul taught (2 Peter 3:13-18). So while its plausible to propose Paul taught in accordance wit his own prejudices, Peter did not think so.

Further, Paul was somewhat of mystic who encountered Jesus through meditation and prayer. In Hindu terms I wonder if there are parallels with Bhakti yoga.

Bhakti yoga - Wikipedia

Paul's mystical encounters with Christ are recorded in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 and Acts of the apostles 9:3-6

 

[metis]

Thank you. Would you elaborate please?

I have to go-- dinner's calling-- so please respond to this so I'll remember to get back to ya tomorrow. I got CRS disease, ya know.

 

[oldbadger]

..............................
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?

The message of Christ was all Paul's. Totally. He knew and/or cared little about Jesus, as shown by his failure to describe any of Yeshua's life-mission, save for the last supper and execution.

But Yeshua BarYosef's mission was quite different..... he tried to continue with the Baptist's mission, making a clear stand against Temple and priesthood corruption, greed, hypocrisy and disloyalty to the Jewish people. It's all there, mostly in G-Mark.

 

[Chris Lovel]

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?

I have always found it interesting that all religions believe they have the franchise on God. "Ours is the only true God all others are blasphemy" is the cry. My question, why do you need religion to believe in a God? All religions tell you what to believe, even convincing people there are punishments if they don't believe. The problem is these people really don't know what they are talking about. Let's face it there are over 400 conflicting passages in the Bible, which one to believe?. Then there is the problem with accuracy, how many people who were reportedly present at the time of an event or even a miracle actually wrote it down or recorded it? It must therefore have been passed on by word of mouth and we all know how inaccurate that is. In other words most of the Bible is here-say, not acceptable as evidence in any court of law. I don't believe in God, I am absolutely certain of it's existence so I have passed to what is called the gnosis. Oh, and sorry God is not a "he" it is an it, neither male or female.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Everyone back then had their own interpretation of what Christianity was. In fact, there was no "standard" or original Christianity at all. It was created by the followers in their own understandings of it, and only later when the edict went out to consolidate these different Christianities into a single belief system, that the war of politics called anyone but the ones who won out the day as "heretics" or "wrong thinkers". It's ridiculous. Paul's Christianity is just one variation of many back then. There never was an "authentic church". The whole "apostolic succession" thing was a made-up 2nd century invention to try to make their own group look like the "chosen ones".

Regardless the Christian church remained relatively united until about the 4th or 5th century AD. Every church that I’ve ever heard of accepts Paul. There have been major theological controversies but none of them are about the importance of Paul. Peter and Paul did disagree but then appear to have reconciled. The early theologians support Paul.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@adrian009 Thanks for posting this. In my reading I have contiuously come across opposing refences to Paul as the hero/villain of the period.
I am hoping for some good informed responses here.

Hi @rocala

I too am hoping for informed responses. What’s required is scripture evidence of a significant departure between what Christ taught as recorded in the gospels and what Paul taught in the 13 letters of the New Testament that are believed to be the works of Paul. Scholars may not agree on all those works as being Pauline but at least seven are. Anything considered needs to consider historical and textural context based on a reasoned exegesis. It doesn’t have to be mainstream but it does need to demonstrate clear contradictions.

Arguments such as ‘Paul seemed like a hardliner, so he corrupted the church for sure’ or ‘there’s a few historic discrepancies so it’s all fake for certain’ don’t impress me but may work for you. Did you have anything specific in mind?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have always found it interesting that all religions believe they have the franchise on God. "Ours is the only true God all others are blasphemy" is the cry. My question, why do you need religion to believe in a God? All religions tell you what to believe, even convincing people there are punishments if they don't believe. The problem is these people really don't know what they are talking about. Let's face it there are over 400 conflicting passages in the Bible, which one to believe?. Then there is the problem with accuracy, how many people who were reportedly present at the time of an event or even a miracle actually wrote it down or recorded it? It must therefore have been passed on by word of mouth and we all know how inaccurate that is. In other words most of the Bible is here-say, not acceptable as evidence in any court of law. I don't believe in God, I am absolutely certain of it's existence so I have passed to what is called the gnosis. Oh, and sorry God is not a "he" it is an it, neither male or female.

They are all reasonable points you make. However the OP question concerns contradictions between what Jesus and Paul taught. Do any of those 400 contradictions support a corrupted Pauline gospel?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't think Paul even knew what Jesus's message was.

Paul never even met Jesus. He was a professional persecutor of the enemies of the Roman Empire. Jesus opposed pagan oppression of the Jewish people, even when it was being done by Jews.

So, of course, Jesus's disciples weren't going to tell Paul what Jesus was up to. They didn't want to wind up crucified like Jesus was. They just gave Paul the sanitized, social reformer, version of Jesus. Little to do with Jesus's Message. But Paul took it and ran with it.

Tom

Sounds like conjecture though. It may be true and it may not. What did Paul teach that corrupted Christ’s message?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Could Paul even be considered an apostle?

He's self-identified as far as I can tell reading the narratives.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Could Paul even be considered an apostle?

He's self-identified as far as I can tell reading the narratives.

Jesus self-identified as the Messiah and His disciples agreed. Paul self-identified as an Apostle and the other apostles agreed.

Why does self identification exclude being an apostle or anything else for that matter?

 

[Dawnofhope]

What would you define as the "cause" of Christ? And, did Paul "champion" that cause? It seems like the biggest thing Paul accomplished was to break away from the Laws Moses brought, to allow new converts, that weren't from a Jewish background, not have to worry about keeping the Law. It became their faith in Jesus that saved them, and not how well a person kept the Law. Which, to Paul, the Law was impossible to keep anyway.

Paul along with the other apostles managed to transform what Christ taught to an almost exclusively Jewish audience to a Message that could be readily understood and followed by all the gentiles. Did they go against Christ? No, they were simply carrying out His instructions to preach the gospel to all nations. Of course they needed to adapt the message to suit the mindset of their audience who thought and spoke very differently to the Jews. Christ had indicated a break from Mosaic law and there were even suggestions in the Hebrew Bible that exactly that would happen. Such a break would have been unthinkable to the Jews at the time it was written. Perhaps Jesus would not have lasted 3 days let alone 3 years if He made explicitly clear the break that was required. He therefore implicitly taught what the apostles made explicit.

So whatever a Baha'i might think was the true cause of Christ, it became faith and trust in Jesus as being... what? Then all the rest of the NT stories become important. Jesus was a miracle worker and healer. He was the Son of God. And since he had the authority to forgive sins, he was made God himself. And to explain that, Christians invented the Trinity as an explanation how he could be God and man at the same time. He conquered death and rose from the grave and then ascended to the right hand of his Father. But who else did he conquer by rising from the dead? Satan.

Ah, you are getting excited now and considering a larger time frame and interfaith issues. All I ask is the OP be answered.

By the time we're done with all the Christian beliefs that are based on the NT, we have a Christian religion that Baha'i writings say aren't true. And, I'm sure Paul's writings are also part of what Baha'is would question as "The Truth". Unfortunately, the nice things you and other Baha'is say about the NT and Paul, I don't see how it really is supported by what Baha'is believe about Christianity. I think Trailblazer is much closer to the reality of how Baha'is believe... But, of course, Baha'is can't come out and say it so bluntly as she does. But, really, who cares about Paul, Baha'is say Jesus is dead and buried and never, never physically came back to

We would need to refer to the Baha’i writings to establish what Baha’is believe. I’ve done my research. I’ve outlined key differences between Christians and Baha’is in the OP. The recognition of Paul or the apostles isn’t one of them.

If that one belief of the Baha'is is true, Christianity is already a lost and confused religion based on nothing real and substantial. Christianity got buried with Jesus. If Jesus is dead, then so is his Church. And anything Paul had to say can't bring something dead back to life. But was it dead? Did the Church believe that Jesus was dead? No. Was the Church confused and in need of leadership and guidance? Yes. In steps Paul. But, whatever he did, still doesn't change the fact that Baha'is don't believe in many of the basic beliefs and doctrines of Christianity, whether they came from Paul, Peter or any of the gospels. The big one being... Jesus rose from the dead.

You are completely off topic now lol.

Without that, who even cares about Christianity? Believe in Jesus to get saved from hell? Hell no, Baha'is say that isn't true. So Christians can't scare people with that threat either. What's left? Do good because this nice guy Jesus said so? Even those that believe all the miraculous stuff about Jesus can't and don't follow what Jesus said. You need all that stuff to make Jesus special, then, from there, Paul can fine tune it and try to get people to believe it.

So if Paul fine tuned the message of Christ and simply elaborated, that’s insufficient evidence to say he corrupted the message. That’s what the OP is about.

Thanks for your detailed response.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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?

Many liberals try to put a bit of distance between Jesus and Paul, but I do not believe the Bible supports it.

Jesus commissioned Paul and signs and wonders followed Paul mirroring those of Peter in the book of Acts. I think Paul was spot on.

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament and Paul's explanations get it exactly right.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Regardless the Christian church remained relatively united until about the 4th or 5th century AD. Every church that I’ve ever heard of accepts Paul.

Unity when wrong doesn't mean much.

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

A faithful man hears Paul, for he speaks the words of God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Unity when wrong doesn't mean much.

What do you think would have been a more correct view of the Teachings of Christ?

The key differences where Baha’is differ from Christians were never taught by Christ, nor Paul.

 

[Marcion]

Jesus self-identified as the Messiah and His disciples agreed. Paul self-identified as an Apostle and the other apostles agreed.

Why does self identification exclude being an apostle or anything else for that matter?

Marcion's more original Paul was rejected and Marcion's church (bigger than that of Rome at the time) was declared heretical.
The Jesus movement in Jerusalem of the first century rejected the original Pauline teachings as heretical but was itself seen as heretical by the Roman bishops.

It was the Roman church sect that came out victorious and wrote "the" history of "the" Church.
So what most Christians consider to be Christian is the sectarian projection of just one sect of a very varied movement of the first centuries.
The Roman sect made a hybrid mix of the teachings and scriptures, also of some of the movements it had declared heretical (but heavily edited these scriptures obscuring their true origins).

So now, in order to get back to the original mission and teachings of Jesus you will have to disentangle this mess they made and decide which of it was later myth and other conjectural editing. So where in the New Testament can you still find the original historical "Paul the apostle"?
I'm afraid you will find next to nothing there. Much of it was invented by Marcion's or perhaps even Simon Magus' school and the rest by Rome.
And very little can be found that originated in the Mission of Jesus either.

Christianity is in reality mostly fictitious.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Marcion's more original Paul was rejected and Marcion's church (bigger than that of Rome at the time) was declared heretical.
The Jesus movement in Jerusalem of the first century rejected the original Pauline teachings as heretical but was itself seen as heretical by the Roman bishops.

It was the Roman church sect that came out victorious and wrote "the" history of "the" Church.
So what most Christians consider to be Christian is the sectarian projection of just one sect of a very varied movement of the first centuries.
The Roman sect made a hybrid mix of the teachings and scriptures, also of movements it declared heretical (but heavily edited these scriptures obscuring their true origins).

So now, in order to get back to the original mission and teachings of Jesus you will have to disentangle this mess they made and decide which of it was later myth and other conjectural editing. So where in the New Testament can you still find the original historical "Paul the apostle"?
I'm afraid you will find next to nothing there. Much of it was invented by Marcion's or perhaps even Simon Magus' school and the rest by Rome.

I’m comfortable with the New Testament as it stands. I’d never thought about Marcion at all since you joined us. It’s good to be challenged to consider new ideas.


Marcion is sometimes described as a Gnostic philosopher. In some essential respects, Marcion proposed ideas which would have aligned well with Gnostic thought. Like the Gnostics, he argued that Jesus was essentially a divine spirit appearing to human beings in the shape of a human form, and not someone in a true physical body.

However, Marcionism conceptualizes God in a way which cannot be reconciled with broader Gnostic thought. For Gnostics, some human beings are born with a small piece of God's soul lodged within his/her spirit (akin to the notion of a Divine Spark).God is thus intimately connected to and part of his creation. Salvation lies in turning away from the physical world (which Gnostics regard as an illusion) and embracing the godlike qualities within yourself. Marcion, by contrast, held that the Heavenly Father (the father of Jesus Christ) of Marcionism was an utterly alien god; he had no part in making the world, nor any connection with it.

Marcion of Sinope - Wikipedia

 

[wizanda]

Didn't God/Jesus give the apostles the authority to speak on His behalf?

So tho Yeshua appointed the disciples to continue his ministry; Paul's claim on the road to Damascus, directly contradicts Yeshua's warning this is how many would be deceived, by those claiming to be from him using the wording, "I Am Christ" ("Ego I-mee Christos") in all 3 Synoptic Gospels (Luke 21:8, Mark 13:5-6, Matthew 24:4-5).

So then we have to evaluate Paul's teachings compared to Yeshua's in the Synoptic Gospels... Here is a list of 36 points i find contradicting, and we can add loads of scriptures to establish every case.

Did he really change the message of Christ?

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.

So what are the arguments for and against Paul?

Yeshua challenged the Sanhedrin for murdering the prophets as atoning sacrifices in Matthew 23:27-38, Mark 7:1-13, and the Parable of the Wicked Husbandman (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19).

So it isn't only Paul, it is John & Simon as well who were all Pharisees; teaching the one thing Yeshua stood against (murdering prophets as atoning sacrifices), as the reason for his coming.

The Bible is a way to establish who the ravenous hypocrites are before the removal of all the ungodly from reality, and everything is purposely ordained to be this way, it is our test to understand it properly.

In my opinion.

 

[Marcion]

I’m comfortable with the New Testament as it stands. I’d never thought about Marcion at all since you joined us. It’s good to be challenged to consider new ideas.


Marcion is sometimes described as a Gnostic philosopher. In some essential respects, Marcion proposed ideas which would have aligned well with Gnostic thought. Like the Gnostics, he argued that Jesus was essentially a divine spirit appearing to human beings in the shape of a human form, and not someone in a true physical body.

Marcion of Sinope - Wikipedia

The idea that Jesus or Christ did not really have a body can still be found in the so-called 'Letters of Paul', they did not remove this text but the Church of Rome did add their own texts (interpolations) which contradict this Gnostic understanding of Jesus.
Marcion saw the God of the Jewish scriptures as the Creator God who blindly or crudely takes revenge on sinners. According to Marcion the higher more ultimate God is like a loving Father who forgives those that surrender to Him and this all-loving God was the Father of Jesus.
In fact the God of the Jewish scriptures is perhaps a bit like Prakrti of Hindu spiritual philosophy which blindly runs the universe and also gives people their due reactions to their past actions (including to sinful ones). Prakrti also works under God (Supreme Consciousness) and has to express the natural laws blindly.

Marcion and his church never included any Jewish scriptures in his Bible and also rejected the more Jewish gospel of Matthew.
But the other half of the church eventually did include them because they had always considered the Jewish scriptures as sacred since many early Christians had been Jewish themselves earlier. Marcion championed the Pauline Christianity and Rome tried to blend Pauline Christianity with the more Jewish Christianity. Rome could only do this by turning Christianity into something that lacked a clear and meaningful ideology.
You simply had to believe the faith that Rome had concocted, obey the Church and follow its ritualism and sacraments (and donate to its clergy) and all would be well for you in the afterlife. Christ would mediate for your entry into heaven and his teachings had been nothing more than a show of his wisdom as the "Son of God" on his way to the Cosmic sacrifice that could save you from going to hell.