Did Paul champion the Cause of Christ or corrupt it?

CG Didymus said:

But Paul says that if Jesus hasn't risen from the dead, then Christians should be the most pitied of all people. So should we be pitying them?

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

This all started because I said that Paul changed the course of Christianity and that the Christianity of Paul is not the Christianity of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Are Christians under the Law?
by Matt Slick

No, Christians are not under the Law.
​

Click to expand...

I am not criticizing Paul. I am not saying he was a bad person. Clearly, he had faith in Jesus Christ and spread the gospel message far and wide. I am only saying that Paul did not represent what Jesus taught. He started a new religion.

Click to expand...

He certainly did........ Yeshua BarYosef and the Baptist had a completely different mission. I've often wondered whether Paul's contract to put down Yeshua's followers switched into a complete 'hearts and minds' re-routing into a system of control that Rome had thought out? A system that eventually would go wrong for Rome and need culling out? This sounds incredible until we think of the ridiculous initiatives that some of our secret services have dreamed up and failed at over recent decades!

What bothers me so much about this is that so many Christians believe that their beliefs come from Jesus when in reality they come from Paul.

Click to expand...

Pauline Christianity in its most extreme groups has produced churches that want to see public (painful) executions of Gays, Adulterers, Prostitutes, Murderers, Abortionists etc etc....... a kind of religious psychosis.

As an aside, the reason I do not want to study the Bible or talk about Christianity is because of the way it affects and infects my mind. I have enough trouble with God and my own religion. I do not want to have these false beliefs infiltrating my mind. No, there is no danger I will believe them but they have an effect when you are exposed to them a lot.

Click to expand...

I'll bet that Bahauallah warned folks to keep clear of anything that was harmful to them.

A person is either a Baha'i or a Christian. It is dishonest to say you can be both because they contradict each other. Baha'is believe in Jesus, , but we do not believe in the doctrines of Christianity. Abdu'l-Baha makes that perfectly clear.

Click to expand...

OK....... so there are some paragraphs in Bahai which make a lot of sense to me. You've shown that here.

adrian009 said:

@Trailblazer
We need to better understand the Apostle Paul better through the lens of Baha'u'llah's revelation. I am unable to find anything of a negative or critical nature in the Baha'i writings towards the apostle Paul. To the contrary it is all affirms the role and authority of Paul.



Injunctions are a form of law are they not?

The injunctions laid down to the church of Corinth are seen as laws applicable to all churches by Christians. There is no reason to see them in any other light.

The Universal House of Justice is not a manifestation of God, yet is has the power to created or over rule laws according to the exigencies of the time. The exception is they can not over turn laws that are in the explicit writings of Baha'u'llah.

Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian both had the authority to interpret the laws of Baha'u'llah and to clarify them.

Paul believed he had the authority from Jesus to Preach to the Gentiles. That could all be confusion and delusion except Peter whom Jesus appointed as His successor (Matthew 16:8) affirmed the truth of Paul's Teachings (2 Peter 3:15-16).



As said by another, that is not true. There are many laws outside of the Kitab-i-Aqdas and much of the Kitab-i-Aqdas is not laws.



There was enormous emphasis in the New Testament placed on assisting the church to understand the implications of the New Covenant and what it mean for the Old Covenant (Mosaic law). It is because the Jews believed all their Covenants from God were eternal and not transitory.

An essential part of the Old Covenant was the promise of One who would renew it.

Messiah in Judaism - Wikipedia

The verses you quote do not mean that Christians should become anarchists and have no laws.

That is made explicitly clear in your next excerpt.






No longer under Mosaic law but under the rule of Christ.

When Christ stated the most important law (Matthew 22:37) he was actually quoting from Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 6:5). So clearly some of the Mosaic law is still applicable as Paul made clear (Acts of the Apostles 15:29).



We need to understand Paul through a Baha'i perspective. This link is from a conservative Christian perspective and includes references to the doctrine of the fall of Adam which Baha'is reject. The doctrine of the original sin is an example of Christians misinterpreting and misunderstanding Paul's comments in regards references to Adam.



Once again we need to look to the Baha'i writings. Abdu'l-Baha has mentioned Paul and his role abrogating Mosaic law.

For example, in the time of Moses, His Law was conformed and adapted to the conditions of the time; but in the days of Christ these conditions had changed and altered to such an extent that the Mosaic Law was no longer suited and adapted to the needs of mankind; and it was, therefore, abrogated. Thus it was that Christ broke the Sabbath and forbade divorce. After Christ four disciples, among whom were Peter and Paul, permitted the use of animal food forbidden by the Bible, except the eating of those animals which had been strangled, or which were sacrificed to idols, and of blood. They also forbade fornication. They maintained these four commandments. Afterward, Paul permitted even the eating of strangled animals, those sacrificed to idols, and blood, and only maintained the prohibition of fornication. So in chapter 14, verse 14 of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

Also in the Epistle of Paul to Titus, chapter 1, verse 15: “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

Now this change, these alterations and this abrogation are due to the impossibility of comparing the time of Christ with that of Moses. The conditions and requirements in the later period were entirely changed and altered. The former laws were, therefore, abrogated.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 93-96

Abdu'l-Baha supports the needs for the law to be abrogated and affirms the role the apostles took in abrogating the law.



You seem to equate not being under Mosaic law with lawlessness and breaking the law. Both the bible itself and the Baha'i writings affirm that Christianity is not a lawless religion, that Paul didn't teach lawlessness. In fact Abdu'l-Baha praised his character and exhorted the Baha'is to be like Paul.

Now, like unto the morn, the light of the Sun of Truth hath been shed abroad. Effort must be made that slumbering souls may be awakened, the heedless become vigilant, and that the divine teachings, which constitute the spirit of this age, may reach the ears of the people of the world, may be propagated in the press and set forth with brilliance and eloquence in the assemblages of men.


One’s conduct must be like the conduct of Paul, and one’s faith similar to that of Peter. This musk-scented breeze shall perfume the nostrils of the people of the world, and this spirit shall resuscitate the dead.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 223-224



That's a little like saying, I want to know the Baha'i Faith of Baha'u'llah and not Abdu'l-Baha.

If you are disinterested in learning about the Bible then should you be quoting from the bible or giving an opinion about characters in the Bible?



There are an abundance of biblical scholars that both support Paul and criticise him. The problem in taking a perspective of being so critical of Paul is the risk of contradicting the Baha'i writings and the Bible itself.

Once I have some time I'll consider what this biblical scholar has to say and comment further.

Thanks for posting.

Click to expand...

adrian009 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Milton Platt said:

He is the only one scholars believe might have actually written the things attributed to him. The other writers are all anonymous.

Click to expand...

oldbadger said:

Imagine any devoted and genuine type of religious person who lives an entire lifetime of visiting religious centres for services, feeling guilty about various bodily needs and forces, obeying all kinds of guidance rules & laws, and generally having been told how to think behave and ..... generally how to live; and at the end of their life they (somehow) discover that 'The Path of Zog' or whatever was not even a rough-track let-alone a pathway to a happy heaven or pleasure dome (whatever)....... and they are telling you all this (somehow) ..... you certainly couldn't feel empathy for them 'cos you didn't experience all that waste of life yourself, but you sure could have sympathy. Would you? Would you sympathise?

Click to expand...

oldbadger said:

I have never quite understood this particular belief held by some Christians...

The New Testament shows 1050 guidances, rules and laws for Christians to live by, including having to live under the laws of the lands which they reside within, which of course does suggest 'living under a law'.

Maybe Paul felt that 'entry to heaven' din't require a perfect life, just faith... ?

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

James D Tabor, Contributor
Professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Writer, Researcher, Christian Origins, Ancient Judaism

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

Christianity Before Paul

The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity can be traced back to Paul — not to Jesus. In contrast, the original Christianity before Paul is somewhat difficult to find in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

Over the span of my academic career I have taught a course simply titled “Paul,” and I half-jokingly tell the students the first day that Paul is one of those people for whom a last name is not necessary, much like Elvis or Madonna. I have begun the course with what I intend to be a startling assertion: Paul is the most influential person in human history. I have in mind, of course, the West in particular. The foundations of Western civilization, from our assumptions about reality to our societal and personal ethics, rest upon the heavenly visions and apparitions of a single man — the apostle Paul. We are all cultural heirs of Paul. In contrast, Jesus as a historical figure — that is, a Jewish Messiah of his own time who sought to see the kingdom of God established on earth — has been largely lost to our culture. In this holiday season, it is worth taking pause and thinking a bit about the historical origins of the Christian faith, and how much it depends on St. Paul.

Visit any church service, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Greek Orthodox, and it is the apostle Paul and his ideas that are central — in the hymns, the creeds, the sermons, the invocation and benediction, and of course, the rituals of baptism and the Holy Communion or Mass. Whether birth, baptism, confirmation, marriage or death, it is predominantly Paul who is evoked to express meaning and significance.

Click to expand...

CG Didymus said:

But, if Jesus is dead, and only his spirit is alive, then what? And, if that's the truth, then they should be pitied, 'cause for 2000 years most Christians have been wrong.

Click to expand...

CG Didymus said:

If Jesus hasn't risen from the dead, then Christians should be the most pitied of all people. So should we be pitying them? I said that meaning that if the Baha'is are correct that Jesus didn't rise physically from the dead, then by what Paul is teaching is wrong. He doesn't believe Jesus is dead. He believes that Jesus came back to life... at least that is what my Christian friends tell me. So they shouldn't be pitied at all.

But, if Jesus is dead, and only his spirit is alive, then what? And, if that's the truth, then they should be pitied, 'cause for 2000 years most Christians have been wrong. But who ya goin to believe? Christians show the Scriptures, including Paul's. Baha'is, mostly Adrian, show me an alternative interpretation of those Scriptures to make them symbolic. I think I'm to be pitied. What do you believe? Maybe I'll try that instead.

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity, namely that Christ is God “born in the flesh,” that his sacrificial death atones for the sins of humankind, and that his resurrection from the dead guarantees eternal life to all who believe, can be traced back to Paul — not to Jesus. Indeed, the spiritual union with Christ through baptism, as well as the “communion” with his body and blood through the sacred meal of bread and wine, also trace back to Paul. This is the Christianity most familiar to us, with the creeds and confessions that separated it from Judaism and put it on the road to becoming a new religion.

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

Paul never met Jesus. The chronological facts are undisputed. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor or prefect of Judea, in April, A.D. 30. As best we can determine it was not until seven years after Jesus’ death, around A.D. 37, that Paul reports his initial apparition of “Christ,” whom he identifies with Jesus raised from the dead. He asks his followers when challenged for his credentials: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” equating his visionary experience with that of those who had known Jesus face-to-face (1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul’s claim to have “seen” Jesus, as well as the teachings he says he received directly from Jesus, came after Jesus’ lifetime, and can be categorized as subjective clairvoyant experiences (Galatians 1:12, 18; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 12:1-10). These “revelations” were not a one-time experience of “conversion,” but a phenomenon that continued over the course of Paul’s life. Paul confesses that he does not comprehend the nature of these ecstatic spiritual experiences, whether they were “in the body, or out of the body” but he believed that the voice he heard, the figure he saw and the messages he received were encounters with the heavenly Christ (2 Corinthians 12:2-3).

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

It was a full decade after Jesus’ death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem (whom he calls Cephas, his Aramaic name), and had a brief audience with James, the brother of Jesus, and leader of the Jesus movement (Galatians 1:18-23). Paul subsequently operated independently of the original apostles, preaching and teaching what he calls his “Gospel,” in Asia Minor for another 10 years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around A.D. 50. It was only then, 20 years after Jesus’ death, that he encountered James and Peter again in Jerusalem and met for the first time the rest of the original apostles of Jesus (Galatians 2:1). This rather extraordinary chronological gap is a surprise to many. It is one of the key factors in understanding Paul and his message.

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

What this means is that we must imagine a “Christianity before Paul” that existed independently of his influence or ideas for more than 20 years, as well as a Christianity preached by Paul, which developed independently of Jesus’ original apostles and followers.

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

I have spent my 30-year career as a scholar of Christian Origins investigating the silence between two back-to-back statements of the Apostles’ Creed, namely that Jesus was: “Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary,” and that he “Was crucified, dead and buried, and on the third day He rose again from the dead.”

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

Is it not striking that this oldest and most foundational Christian creed jumps from Jesus’ birth to his death and resurrection, entirely skipping over his life?

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

How did it happen that the way Jesus came into the world, and how he left — Christmas and Easter — came to define Christianity itself? Here Catholics, mainstream Protestants and evangelicals all agree. To be a Christian is to believe in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ, and thus to participate in the salvation Christ brought to the world as God-in-the-flesh.

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

In contrast, the original Christianity before Paul is somewhat difficult to find in the New Testament, since Paul’s 13 letters predominate and Paul heavily influences even our four Gospels. Fortunately, in the letter of James, attributed to the brother of Jesus, as well as in a collection of the sayings of Jesus now embedded in the Gospel of Luke (the source scholars call Q), we can still get a glimpse of the original teachings of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

What we get in the letter of James is the most direct possible link to the Jewish teachings of Jesus himself. James is quite sure that the “Judge” is standing at the door, and that the kingdom of God has drawn very near (James 5:7). He warns the rich and those who oppress the weak that very soon the judgment of God will strike. James seems to be directly echoing and affirming what he had learned and passed on from his brother Jesus. It is important to note that James did not directly quote Jesus or attribute any of these teachings to Jesus by name — even though they are teaching of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

For James the Christian message is not the person of Jesus but the message that Jesus proclaimed. James’ letter lacks a single teaching that is characteristic of the apostle Paul and it draws nothing at all from the Gospel narratives. What we have preserved in this precious document is a reflection of the original apocalyptic proclamation of Jesus: the “Gospel of the kingdom of God” with its political and social implications.

Christianity Before Paul | HuffPost

Click to expand...

paarsurrey said:

"Abdu'l-Baha has mentioned Paul and his role abrogating Mosaic law." Unquote.

So, it was Paul who abrogated the Law of Moses, Jesus did not abrogate it.
Regards

Click to expand...

Milton Platt said:

He is the only one scholars believe might have actually written the things attributed to him. The other writers are all anonymous.

Click to expand...

adrian009 said:

There is almost unanimous agreement from scholars that seven of the New Testament books were written by Paul. Just because a book doesn't mention who wrote doesn't mean to say it wasn't know who wrote it. Having said that I freely acknowledge the uncertainty when it comes to most of the other books in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

Marcion said:

There is a whole school of scholars who believe that those letters were never sent by anyone and were ever written by a Paul from the first century. I agree fully with their ideas. But I am sure that Simon Magus was a great tantric so it doesn't bother me.
However it is nice to know what the real history is behind things, well sort of.

Click to expand...

adrian009 said:

In some ways the are analogies between Paul and Abdu'l-Baha. Both had outstanding character. Both interpreted and taught the Teachings to another culture, Paul to the Gentiles, Abdu'l-Baha to the Christian West. Both had some authority in regards what they taught, Abdu'l-Baha directly from Baha'u'llah through His Will and Testament, Paul affirmed through Peter who was appointed by Christ. Both were tireless promulgators of their religion who sacrificed their lives for their cause. Paul was eventually Martyred.

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

Yes, there are many similarities, but there are also differences. Paul did not have authority conferred upon him directly from a Manifestation of God as did Abdu'l-Baha. Paul changed the course of Christianity but Abdu'l-Baha did not change the course of the Baha'i Faith. Rather, he carried it forward.

I could not sum up the difference between Jesus and Paul better than wizanda did in #39

"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."​

Click to expand...

Trailblazer said:

But why should they be pitied? I mean why should we feel sorry for them, because they were duped by the Church? Maybe, but there is no reason to pity them anymore because Baha'u'llah came and straightened all that out. The information is available if they really want it but if they want to continue to cling to their beliefs that is their choice because they have free will. I see no reason why anyone should feel sorry for them, not anymore. They are getting something out of that belief, or at least they think they are. From the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus they are getting all kinds of other beliefs, like the belief that Jesus is coming back and the belief that their bodies will rise from the grave and be glorified. From what I have seen, they do not want to relinquish these beliefs. It's their choice.

Click to expand...