Are Muslims right about Paul?

[outhouse]

The early church that followed Yeshua were most likely Ebionites

You have zero credible evidence in support of this.

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.

You have zero credible evidence in support of this.

That is what Paul was attacking, as it challenged the wealthy versions of Judaism (Pharisees and Sadducee).

This shows a lack of knowledge on what exactly a Pharisee was and did, and acted.

Many Pharisees mirrored Zealots. Pharisees were divided in themselves.

 

[wizanda]

You have zero credible evidence in support of this.

Thought there was evidence to show that the Ebionites and Essenes had an ideology of giving up wealth and living in a big commune? Similar to what we find in Acts.
We also find Yeshua teaching similar, thus there is a possibility some of his teachings either came from them or was taught by him.

This shows a lack of knowledge on what exactly a Pharisee was and did, and acted.

Not really, though the Sadducee were often seen as the wealthy elites; the Pharisees being more of the priestly class, also held authority and wealth, they weren't planning on giving up.

 

[Harikrish]

There are similarities between Paul and the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) to suggest their roles were complementary. God appeared to both. Paul spoke to the Gentiles, the prophet spoke to infidels. Both expanded their beliefs beyond the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Muslim beef with Paul is on circumcision. Paul did not require gentile converts to undergo circumcision.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Did Paul corrupt the message of Jesus?

No

 

[outhouse]

Thought there was evidence to show that the Ebionites and Essenes had an ideology of giving up wealth and living in a big commune? Similar to what we find in Acts.

99% of the Jews had no wealth and Acts is not a good historical resource.

You have nothing for Ebionites. All we know is they were part of the Christian movement after his death, not before.

As far as the Essenes go, how much do we really know about them and what is the major source for their history? Josephus.

And we know they were Jewish, so finding Jewish similarities makes no credible tie.

We also find Yeshua teaching similar

No, Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher healer who mirrored Zealots long before the other sects.

, thus there is a possibility some of his teachings either came from them or was taught by him.

Again just Jewish similarities. Judaism was wide and diverse with all flavors present and no real orthodoxy present.

We have a lack of information here, but nothing pointing to the sect you claim that was probably created after the formation of what would become Christians

Not really, though the Sadducee were often seen as the wealthy elites

Yes but.

Way off base brother, we were talking about Pharisees, not Saducees

the Pharisees being more of the priestly class, also held authority and wealth, they weren't planning on giving up.

Yes but what you may not know is the Pharisees were divided within their selves. They had some who mirrored Zealots, and some who mirrored Hellenist, and they were divided. So you cannot use blanket statements that cover all of them, without being more descriptive.

What you are saying is more correct for Hellenistic Pharisees. Which would have been more corrupt.

 

[Simplelogic]

99% of the Jews had no wealth and Acts is not a good historical resource.

You have nothing for Ebionites. All we know is they were part of the Christian movement after his death, not before.

As far as the Essenes go, how much do we really know about them and what is the major source for their history? Josephus.

And we know they were Jewish, so finding Jewish similarities makes no credible tie.



No, Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher healer who mirrored Zealots long before the other sects.




Again just Jewish similarities. Judaism was wide and diverse with all flavors present and no real orthodoxy present.

We have a lack of information here, but nothing pointing to the sect you claim that was probably created after the formation of what would become Christians




Yes but.

Way off base brother, we were talking about Pharisees, not Saducees



Yes but what you may not know is the Pharisees were divided within their selves. They had some who mirrored Zealots, and some who mirrored Hellenist, and they were divided. So you cannot use blanket statements that cover all of them, without being more descriptive.

What you are saying is more correct for Hellenistic Pharisees. Which would have been more corrupt.

Who cares. What is the point here?

 

[Muffled]

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.

Where do you see YHVH in this verse?

Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
26:64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

 

[Muffled]

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).

I beleive you are saying that "the power" is actually YHVH?

However I beleive this is an extra-biblical law and not one commanded by God.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I beleive the opponents of Paul were called Judaizers because they wanted Christian gentiles to become Jews in order to become Christians. Jesus makes no such distinction only commanding the preaching of the Gospel.

 

[outhouse]

Who cares. What is the point here?

That you both need to learn what your debating about. You need some professor time in a bad way.

 

[Simplelogic]

I beleive you are saying that "the power" is actually YHVH?

However I beleive this is an extra-biblical law and not one commanded by God.

Yeshua was quoting from the Psalms. The word "power" does not exist in the Psalm. The name YHVH does. This was why the high priest tore his robes. The bogus oral law mandated that the high priest rend his robes upon hearing the name pronounced. The Torah prohibits such actions.

 

[Hawkins]

The mainstream interpretation of Paul was that the Law of Moses was completed in Jesus. Christians do not believe they are meant to follow the Law of Moses anymore. It seems that Jesus taught his followers to keep the Law until "heaven and earth pass away". Muslims also believe in the continued validity of the Law of Moses. Is this not the reality behind almost all Christian doctrine?

Apparently it is a complete misunderstanding of what is said. Paul, as a formal Pharisee, was called by Jesus to explain the New Covenant more thoroughly from a theological point of view.

 

[Hawkins]

There are similarities between Paul and the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) to suggest their roles were complementary. God appeared to both. Paul spoke to the Gentiles, the prophet spoke to infidels. Both expanded their beliefs beyond the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Muslim beef with Paul is on circumcision. Paul did not require gentile converts to undergo circumcision.

That remains an assertion. Paul speaks in consistent with what Jesus said. There's no contradiction there.

A whole ago I heard some said that the coming of Jesus actually abolish the Law. Now the tone has changed as Now Jesus didn't abolish the Law but Paul did.

 

[Simplelogic]

That remains an assertion. Paul speaks in consistent with what Jesus said. There's no contradiction there.

A whole ago I heard some said that the coming of Jesus actually abolish the Law. Now the tone has changed as Now Jesus didn't abolish the Law but Paul did.

Jesus vs Paul (salvation doctrine) | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Unification]

The mainstream interpretation of Paul was that the Law of Moses was completed in Jesus. Christians do not believe they are meant to follow the Law of Moses anymore. It seems that Jesus taught his followers to keep the Law until "heaven and earth pass away". Muslims also believe in the continued validity of the Law of Moses. Is this not the reality behind almost all Christian doctrine?

 

[Muffled]

Yeshua was quoting from the Psalms. The word "power" does not exist in the Psalm. The name YHVH does. This was why the high priest tore his robes. The bogus oral law mandated that the high priest rend his robes upon hearing the name pronounced. The Torah prohibits such actions.

Which Psalm are you saying is a quote? I believe all I could find was Psalm 110:1 and Jesus is not directly quoting it.

 

[Simplelogic]

Which Psalm are you saying is a quote? I believe all I could find was Psalm 110:1 and Jesus is not directly quoting it.

Its a paraphrase of Psalm 110.

 

[Deadtroopers]

"Christ spoke to Paul in visions if you are a Christian. If you are anyone else he was either lying or mistaking auditory hallucinations for communications from a deity."

Paul met and spoke to Jesus when Jesus was keeping out of the way of the Jewish authorities after the crucifixion.
A short time later there was a functioning community of believers sending out missionaries to the emerging communities around Samaria.
Paul was recalled to the headquarters on at least one occasion to pull him back into line for accepting non-Jews into the community without undergoing conversion to Judaism.

Where do you get that rot from exactly? besides from pulling it out of your bum.

 

[psychoslice]

Are they right about anything ?.

 

[Deadtroopers]

You're ignoring that the material from which are derived the quotes from Jesus in the synoptics are likely sourced about 7 years after the Jesus Event, and are likely Galilean in origin. The source would have known an earthly Jesus, and quoted an earthly Jesus.

You're also ignoring the fact that Paul probably began preaching less than 18 months following the Jesus Event, and that the apostles you mention that he knew would also have known an earthly Jesus.

While I agree that Jesus was highly mythicized following his death, there very likely was a factual Jesus that began a movement within Judaism.

Evidence? Sources? I have rehearsed this at length and surveyed a large chunk of the scholarship. What you assert is simply not born out by either the evidence or the argument.