Saul of Tarsus. The first heretic?

SubjectSean wrote: »

He formed a theology of his own that Jesus would never have endorsed.

What theology was that? Maybe give us one at a time so they can be properly addressed.

SubjectSean wrote: »

People in the Jewish Christian tradition regarded him as such. I do not understand why you believe the word of this murderer who was 'all things to all men' without question. Surely you can see that his teaching contradicts not just the Jerusalem Church but that of Jesus himself.

Yes Paul WAS a murderer. He sinned, weclome to the club. He repented. He then went about doing the Lord's work.

That is what we should all do. Repent of our sin and then go do the Lord's work.

No I don't see anywhere that Paul contradicts the teachings of Christ nor the Jerusalem church?

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

As far as I am aware it is generally accepted that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses who attributed the names of apostles to give authority to their writings. Mattew's was basically heavily copied from the Gospel of Mark and the illusive Quelle Gospel, while John is quite different in content to the synoptic gospels and Jesus is portrayed as bringing the Greek philosophical "Logos" to his followers.

Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

SubjectSean wrote: »

The thinking of Saul of Tarsus as witnessed in his letters, is more significant to the Christian faith than that of any other New Testament author. In discussions here I have been frequently surprised to learn that those who profess to be followers of Jesus are mostly ignorant or in denial of the great rift that existed between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem

I wasn't ignorant of this rift. I pointed it out in several of my posts. Yes there was a rift and more than just a rift, it was all out war. James (not the apostle) rather the brother of our Lord preached that Jesus was the Messiah but you also needed to adhere to the Law of Moses. He preached to Jews because to have association with the Gentiles was to be unclean. Who craftily used scripture (just like Satan when tempting Jesus) to support his argument about works of the law and the way of Faith. When Jesus told His disciples to preach the Gospel He said to go first to the lost house of Israel who by then were scattered throughout the world. Paul was chosen to preach the Gospel to these Gentile nations who were not Jewish nor knew any of the old Jewish traditions. James of whom there is no evidence even followed Jesus before the Resurrection was made the leader of the Church because the traditions in that part of the world was that a family member take over as leader when the leader dies. Where is the evidence that Jesus came to James? Where's James’ testimony of conversion? I’ve yet to read one. In fact when Jesus was preaching in Matt 12 His family came to talk to Him because (in my opinion) they believed Him to be beside Himself due to the claims He was making about Himself and that He was embarrassing them.

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Matt 12 46-50

So much for having a family relationship and personal contact with Jesus when He walked the earth.

And why was the Epistle of James only added to the cannon in 500 AD? It obviously wasn't thought much of by the early church Fathers. They were right. As Martin Luther says: “It’s a right “strawy” little epistle with not one word of Gospel in it” In fact Martin Luther didn’t even believe that James wrote it. I do though, it’s consistent with his personality as described in other NT documents.

SubjectSean wrote: »

As Michael Beignet and Richard Leigh (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception Corgi Books, London, 1991) have said;

"... Paul is in effect the first Christian heretic, and his teachings, which become the foundation of later Christianity, are a flagrant deviation from the 'Original' or 'pure' form extolled by the leadership. Whether James, the 'Lord's brother,' was literally Jesus' blood kin or not (and everything suggests he was), it is clear that he knew Jesus...personally. So did most of the other members of the community or 'early Church,' in Jerusalem, including of course, Peter. When they spoke, they did so with first hand authority. Paul had never had such personal acquaintance with the figure he'd begun to regard as his 'Saviour.' He had only his quasi-mystical experience in the desert and the sound of a disembodied voice. For him to arrogate authority to himself on this basis is, to say the least, presumptuous. It also leads him to distort Jesus' teachings beyond recognition, to formulate, in fact, his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then to legitimise it by spuriously ascribing it to Jesus."

"As things transpired, however, the mainstream of the new movement gradually coalesced, during the next three centuries, around Paul and his teachings. Thus, to the undoubted posthumous horror of James and his associates, an entirely new religion was indeed born, a religion that came to have less and less to do with its supposed founder."

Ooooh, well let’s just base everything on what Michael Beignet and Richard Leigh say from now on shall we? I think not. You’ve yet to answer PDN’s question:

PDN Post # 27 in this thread: "So you are quite happy to say that Paul, Luke and the writers of the contemporary documents and historical records are wrong or liars, but now you want to argue for the veracity of passing statements by people who adhered to Paul's 'heresy' and lived 250 years after the events in question. Don't you think that's a little inconsistent?"

Plus you also want to adhere more to what Geocities.com, Michael Beignet and Richard Leigh say rather than historical sources that have stood the test of time for over 20 centuries.


What exactly do you believe is the message of Jesus? Do you believe He came to take away the yoke of bondage (the law) by becoming the vicarious sacrificial lamb prophesised by Isaiah in order to heap it on all the more? He came to seek and save that which was lost. Not to heap on more unbearable burdens.

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt 11:28-30

His burden is not the yoke of the law but the way of faith. Read Hebrews 11. It's ok you can read that, a lot of scholars contend that Paul didn't write that one, so you're ok there if you're in that band. God's way is the way of faith. Because He knows that nobody has ever kept the law and not just the ten commandments but the whole Old Testament including the Torah. Only Jesus lived the perfect life and only He had the means to redeem us from the law's curse. And the Gospel (Good News) is that He did actually do it. The Law is gone, dead, nailed to a tree being as Jesus said fulfilled in Him. That's why He says it couldn't pass away until it was fulfilled. He said that when he was alive on the earth. That was to be the culmination of His earthly ministry and was in the fact the reason He was born in the first place. Why else do you think He called Peter (the closest to Him) Satan when Peter rebuked Him by saying let this (dying on the cross) be far from you Lord. Satan did not want Jesus to die. He (Satan) knew what it meant if He Jesus died. His dominion over mankind would be destroyed. "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." I John 3:8


You see the problem with people who think God is going to judge them by the standard of the law is that they're right. Those who reject the sacrifice Jesus made and the grace that is now available in Christ will be judged by that old standard. They will be found to be unrighteous by this standard (for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God) and condemned by that standard the punishment of which is death of body and soul. Jesus the Righteous dying for the unrighteous (righteousness being defined as those who keep covenant. The old covenant being the law and the new covenant being the way of faith or acting in trusting relationship on God's Word) laid down His perfect life. So to try gain access by the old standard after He took it away is an insult to God. Jesus calls them thieves and robbers. They come over the wall and not through Him who is the door of the sheep cot. God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice as an adequate propitiatory and forever as an adequate propitiation. That’s why He is seated at the right hand of the Father. Seated typifying work completed, all T’s are crossed and I's dotted in fulfilling the law, which has passed away forever. Never again to be brought up. Now the accuser (as another poster pointed out as a name of the Devil) is silenced. He can no longer accuse the brethren before the throne of God because Christ defeated Him on Calvary. This is true Christianity, not the "obey Moses" doctrine that James preached. Paul was right and James was wrong end of. Praise Jesus for the Apostle Paul.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Paul was arrogant and not a very nice man at all.

Are you serious? A nice man? Never has a so called “nice man” reformed the church in its history. Give me courage, tenacity and intelligence over 'nice' any day of the week.

James' argument for works of the law versus Paul’s' argument for faith in God's promises

James:

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:20-26

Abraham and Rahab? The liar and the Harlot. Saved by works. Is he for real? Abraham told his wife to lie to the Egyptians if they asked her if he was her husband. He said tell them I’m your brother. She was so beautiful Abraham knew that the Egyptians would kill him to get her. Saved by works? And Rahab ran a whore house. She also lied when the soldiers came for the spies. She hid them in straw and said that they went where they did not go. She lied and whored and James says she was saved by her works? Give me a break man, she was saved by her faith.


Now listen to Paul. Tell me if this rings true or not:

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." Romans 4


“By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.” Hebrews 11:31

You can have James I’m sticking with Paul.

PDN wrote: »

A few names spring to mind:

RT France, former principal of Wycliffe Hall at Oxford, and author of the Recent new international commentary on Matthew.

...

Craig L Blomberg, author of The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel and Professor of New testament at Denver Seminary.

Are you sure of these sources? I have done a little check on these two at random, Bloomberg and R.T. France, and both seem to indicate the contrary in the articles by them that I read:

Bloomberg:

"One of the reasons John seems so different is because Matthew, Mark and Luke are related to one another at a literary level. Despite important distinctives, their accounts are more similar than dissimilar because Matthew and Luke adopted in general Mark's overall outline and selection of passages, while supplementing them as well."

Link to article

R.T. France:

"Most scholars in fact speak of a written source or sources (in addition to Mark) used by Matthew and Luke. It is not clear why this lost 'document' (known for convenience as 'Q') should be the only or the earliest such record."

Link to article

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I am sure of these sources.

Neither of the articles you link to indicate anything contrary to the authors' views that Matthew and John were the actual writers of the Gospels that bear their names.

You seem to be confusing the issue of authorship with that of literary relationship. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that an eye-witness to an series of events would refer to any pre-existing written records before committing pen to paper.

Let me give you a concrete example. I was recently asked to contribute a chapter for a book covering the history of my denomination's congregations in Ireland. Now, I am certainly an eye-witness, since I founded our first congregation and have served as Bishop for a number of years. However, my first step (as with any sensible and careful author) was to gather as much material as possible to determine which events were the most noteworthy and to ensure that I remembered things in the correct chronological order. Therefore I contacted every pastor and minister in our churches and asked them to email me copies of every report or article they had written on these (recent) historical events. One of these reports (which had never been published) was so well written and carefully researched that I used it as a template for my own chapter, although I did add a number of events she had omitted and rearrange some material to reflect my thematic approach rather than a strictly chronological one. When I sent my chapter to the book's overall editor I attached copies of my colleagues' articles and reports (including the unpublished one - let's call it 'Q') so he could place them in our denomination's archives for any future research.

Now, I doubt if anyone will be much interested in reading my literary efforts five years from now, let alone 1900 years later. But imagine that in the year 4000 someone finds my chapter and other subsequent accounts based on the material I sent to the archives. By comparing our writings these future literary critics conclude that later historians used my chapter as a source, but that we obviously shared a common source. No copy of this common source exists, so the literary critics call it 'Q' (the critics are German and quelle means 'source').

Will these future critics assume that PDN was not the real author of my article? After all, since I used other sources then I can hardly have been an eye-witness, can I?

Bear in mind that I was writing about events that occurred a maximum of 15 years ago. Matthew was writing about events that occurred at least 30 years previously, so it is understandable that he may have used other written accounts as templates, including Mark's Gospel.

Now, imagine that in 10 or 20 years time a colleague of mine, also an eye witness to the founding of our churches in Ireland, decides to write a theological work that stresses a particular aspect of our work - that the multicultural and interracial harmony in our churches was a work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore he chooses some significant events from our history, but omits many of the events recorded in previous written accounts because they are irrelevant to his thesis. He also includes additional material from his own experience as an eye-witness, material that is highly relevant to his purpose but that we had not thought necessary to include in a more general history. This colleague of mine (let's call him John), having spent some of the intervening years in theological research overseas, may indeed use language that explains the history of the denomination in Ireland in the larger context of international debate over immigration and cross-cultural communication.

Our future literary critics will readily see that John, although he covers some of the same events, did not rely as heavily as me on Q. After all, his purpose was completely different. They will also see that John uses language and theological jargon that was unknown in our churches in Ireland in the early 1990s. Therefore they may mistakenly suggest that John was obviously not Irish at all, and therefore almost certainly not an eye-witness. If they are particularly imaginative they may even invent a 'Johannine Community' that reinterpreted the history of our churches.

All of which, if you have had the patience to read this far, demonstrates that apparent literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels, and the lack of such relationships to the Fourth Gospel, have no bearing whatsoever on whether they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Therefore France, Blomberg and many others are behaving with impeccable scholarly logic in discussing literary sources etc yet still finding that other evidence strongly supports the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

Exemplary analogousness!