Are Muslims right about Paul?

[nazz]

It depends on how you define Christian. If you define it by James and the twelve apostles than I agree with you. If you define it by Paul's movement in Antioch then I disagree. The Ebionites were staunchly against Paul.

A later group who self-identified as Ebionites opposed Paul's teachings. That is obviously not what Epiphanius meant when he wrote, "Ebionites. This designation was at first like 'Nazarenes,' a common name for all Christians" .

 

[Simplelogic]

A later group who self-identified as Ebionites opposed Paul's teachings. That is obviously not what Epiphanius meant when he wrote, "Ebionites. This designation was at first like 'Nazarenes,' a common name for all Christians" .

Because the name was based off of James and the twelve. The Jerusalem congregations.

 

[sojourner]

Isn't it a bit fishy that 80% of the NT letters were written by a man who was not one of Jesus' twelve apostles? Not only that, Paul never even quotes Jesus' words in any of his letters! Yet most hold the writings of Paul in an elevated fashion. Many Christian scholars actually think that Jesus' words and parables were spoken under the "old covenant" and no longer applicable. They believe that only the words of Paul are what is meant for the "church age". ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME??

80%? Srrsly? There are 21 letters in the NT. Seven of them are uncontested as to Pauline authorship. Four are almost certainly pseudopigraphical, and the rest have no scholarly consensus, but are doubted as to their Pauline authorship.

 

[Harikrish]

Muslims had the benefit of hindsight. Islam was founded in the late 600AD. They had plenty of time to study and be selective about what they put in the Quran. Remember the prophet Mohammad was illiterate and could not read what the scribes wrote. He could only recite from memory his conversations with Gabriel. The Quran was compiled by scribes.

 

[johnpeter1970]

Did Paul corrupt the message of Jesus?

Unbelievers especially Muslims hate Saint Paul the most!

 

[Simplelogic]

Unbelievers especially Muslims hate Saint Paul the most!

Umm…thanks for weighing in I guess.

 

[Muffled]

I believe both Christianity and Islam to be slight distortions of the covenant which YHVH made with Israel. Islam maintains that the blessings descend through Ishmael. Not Isaac. They also hold to a different law structure which has parts of the Torah sprinkled throughout.

Christianity was formed primarily out of the doctrines of Paul. Paul believed in gentile replacement of the Jewish people. He taught that gentiles who believed were the new spiritual Israel and that the covenant with Israel had been transferred to Christians. Paul also believe that the covenant and the law itself had been replaced and was no longer valid.

If you have taken the time to read the 4 gospels and Johns revelation, you will find that Yeshua taught the exact same commandments that YHVH gave to Moses. Of course if you don't hold these texts as reliable then we probably won't agree. No problem.

I don't agree but I believe it behooves you to provide evidence, otherwise you are just whilstling Dixie. (I believe the expression means living in fantasy since the south will never rise again)

 

[Muffled]

Re Muslims, if you put your head in the garbage bin you'll only get sick.

Paul was taught by Yashua Messiah - Period.

Yashua Messiah was under The Law - Period.

Paul, John, Peter, James were under Grace - Period

There is a simplicity that is in Christ - Period

I believe you are in error saying that Jesus is under the law. He is the law. It serves Him.

 

[Muffled]

Unbelievers especially Muslims hate Saint Paul the most!

This appears to be a blanket statement to me. I believe I have not encountered it in my debates.

 

[Harikrish]

I believe you are in error saying that Jesus is under the law. He is the law. It serves Him.

Jesus was put to death as all blasphemer were under the religious blasphemy laws. So Jesus was under the law.

Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

 

[Simplelogic]

Jesus was put to death as all blasphemer were under the religious blasphemy laws. So Jesus was under the law.

Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

Can you cite Yeshua's blasphemy?

 

[Harikrish]

Can you cite Yeshua's blasphemy?

John 19:7
The Jewish leaders insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

 

[Muffled]

Jesus was put to death as all blasphemer were under the religious blasphemy laws. So Jesus was under the law.

Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

Jesus was put to death outside of the law. The case was never proven against Him. The High Priest made a judgement based upon his own personal belief not the law.

 

[Muffled]

John 19:7
The Jewish leaders insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

However, I believe that is not what the law said at all.

 

[outhouse]

Because the name was based off of James and the twelve. The Jerusalem congregations.

You have credible sources for that?

 

[Simplelogic]

John 19:7
The Jewish leaders insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

Is it against the Torah to be a "son of God"?

"I said, "You are gods (literally "elohim"), and all you are children of the Most High." Psalm 82:6

Yeshua also claimed to be the son of God. As we have seen from Psalm 82:6 as quoted above, YHWH even calls men gods because they are His "children". To a certain extent, Scripture indicates that each of us can claim the title of god, and son or daughter of God! Yeshua as much as said, "so what's the big deal about me claiming to be the son of God?" when he quoted the same Psalm to the religious leaders after they got all bent out of shape over the same issue.

Yeshua answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, You are gods'? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the son of God'?" John 10:34-36

Being a son of God does not make one equal to the Father. This rationale by the religious leaders in John 5:18 was leveled as an accusation so they could find some grounds on which do away with Yeshua. Though being a son of God who came from heaven is not the same as being YHWH, it still made Yeshua much greater than the religious leaders, and many of them were threatened by it. "
Who is Yeshua

 

[Simplelogic]

Jesus was put to death outside of the law. The case was never proven against Him. The High Priest made a judgement based upon his own personal belief not the law.

Actually, it is much worse. Yeshua uttered the name YHVH in front of the High Priest which was why he tore his robes. The son's of Aaron were prohibited in the Torah from tearing their robes, however, the Pharisees had made a fake "oral" law which permitted the High priest to do such upon hearing the sacred name of YHVH being pronounced. It was a fake oral law which put Yeshua to death, not the claim to be "the son of God" which was a not a blasphemous title.

 

[Simplelogic]

Here is the Takkanah of the rabbis that was used to put Yeshua to death, it was (Mishnah Sanhedrin VII, 5) the judges arise and rend their garments and never again sew up the torn parts’) we read about this in

Mark 14:60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Yeshua, saying, "Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?"

Mark 14:61 But He kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"

Mark 14:62 Yeshua said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Mark 14:63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?

Mark 14:64 "You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

Mark 14:65 Then some began to spit on Him, and to blindfold Him, and to beat Him, and to say to Him, "Prophesy!" And the officers struck Him with the palms of their hands.

The accusation stemmed from a Sanhedrin law; Mishnah Sanhedrin VII, 5 Mishnah Sanhedrin VII, 5. It reads: ‘The blasphemer only incurs guilt if he utters the secret name of God....when this sentence is pronounced….the judges arise and rend their garments and never again sew up the torn parts’. In order for them to accuse the Messiah of Israel, He had to proclaim to be Yĕhovah, YHWH (YAHWEH) (God of Israel) and to actually speak the name of God (Their rendition of misuse or blasphemy).

 

[outhouse]

Here is the Takkanah of the rabbis that was used to put Yeshua to death

Do you have any credible sources to back your opinion not taught in any university anywhere, in any credible scholarship?

 

[wizanda]

It depends on how you define Christian. If you define it by James and the twelve apostles than I agree with you. If you define it by Paul's movement in Antioch then I disagree. The Ebionites were staunchly against Paul.

The early church that followed Yeshua were most likely Ebionites, as it means poor ones, as he stated to do; they also believed the commandments let them ascend to heaven as Christ taught.
So what is written at the start of Acts, of thousands of people giving up wealth, and living in a big commune are most likely Ebionites.
That is what Paul was attacking, as it challenged the wealthy versions of Judaism (Pharisees and Sadducee).

Christianity is ascribed to Paul and Simon peter's ministry in Antioch, and modern day Christians have to accept Paul's teachings, not Christ's.

The Nazar were not Christians, they were more likely Nazarites within both the Essenes and then the Ebionites, which were more in keeping with the teachings of Yeshua.