Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Mr Slippery more quotes and no answer. "To Israel" or "to the Gentiles", why the contradiction in the mission of Jesus (PBUH) according to the Bible? More "misunderstanding" or "scribal error"? Rely on the Qur'an, the one Book with no "misunderstanding" "scribal errors" for 1,400 years.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Muslims do not claim that Jesus' true disciples tampered with the Bible, but that others claiming to act in their names did so later on. This is attested to by the fact that the Trinitarian church felt it necessary to totally obliterate all Gospel manuscripts written before 325 AD when they officially introduced the "Trinity" to the world. This is why we find such serious contradictions in even the most basic of it's teachings. For example, we are told that Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) is the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. He is claimed to be the author of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. We would expect such a pivotal character in the Bible and the author of the majority of the New Testament books to be able to keep his stories straight at least in such fundamental matters as how he became a Christian and was "saved." However, we can find in the Bible a sworn affidavit by Paul that he is guilty of fabrication. Sound incredible? Let us have a look:
If we read Acts 9:19-29 and Acts 26:19-21, we will find that Paul was busy persecuting the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem and dragging them from their homes to be tortured, killed or converted, when suddenly one day he decided to branch out and persecute them in Damascus. For this reason, he goes to the High Priest asking for letters sanctioning such actions in Damascus. Why he would do this since the High Priest of Jerusalem had no authority over Damascus remains a mystery to many, however, let us continue.
Shortly after setting out to continue his evil work in Damascus, Paul is supposed to have "seen the Lord in the way" and accepted Christianity after being a staunch enemy of Christians and having become famous for his severe persecution of them. Barnabas (one of the apostles of Jesus) then supposedly vouched for him with the other apostles and convinced them to accept him. Paul then went with all of the apostles on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem and all of Judaea preaching boldly to it's people. Paul then appointed himself the twelfth apostle of Jesus (in place of Judas who had the devil in him) as seen in his own books Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1 ..etc..
The verses mentioned are:
"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29
"Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."
Acts 26:19-21
Contradicted by:
"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed."
Galatians 1:15-23
With regard to the first two passages, Reverend Dr. Davies in "The First Christian," says: "These assertions are not inconsistent with each other, but are damaging for another reason,: they are contradicted by Paul himself in his letter to the Galatians (Chapters 1 and 2)." Rev. Davies draws attention to Paul's oath: "Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God I do not lie," which makes his account a sworn affidavit. He goes on to say:
"To the story in Acts, this contradiction is disastrous. There never was a teaching campaign at Jerusalem and through all of the county of Judea (Acts 26:20). If Paul was unknown to the Judean communities as he says, then he had undertaken no mission among them. In fact he had never joined the Judean movement or even attempted to join it. He only saw Cephas, and Jesus' brother James. Even of the other apostles, not to mention more ordinary believers, 'I saw none' he admits. Instead of his having gone 'in and out of Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord' the Jerusalem community had not even known that he was there. 'They only heard' he tells us 'that he who once persecuted us now makes the faith of which he made havoc'; but they never heard him preach it in Judea."
Rev. Davies concludes that
"..if there is any portion of the New Testament that is authentic, it is Paul's letter to the Galatians. If we cannot rely upon this letter, we can rely upon nothing and may as well close our inquiry. But the fact is that we can rely upon it. The letter to the Galatians is from Paul himself and by every test is genuine."
"The First Christian," A Powell Davies, Farrar Straus & Cudahy, pp. 30-31
According to the narration in Acts, Paul saw his alleged vision. "Straightway" he began preaching in the synagogues of Damascus. He built up a reputation through his bold preaching that amazed the masses. He confounded the Jews of Damascus. Many days later, the Jews tried to kill him so he escaped to Jerusalem. He met Barnabas who introduced him to the apostles for the first time. They were all terrified of Paul, but Barnabas convinced them to accept him. Now Paul and all of the apostles went on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem speaking boldly in the name of Jesus.
However, according to the narration in Galatians, Paul saw his alleged vision. "Immediately" he did NOT confer with "flesh and blood" nor did he go to Jerusalem to see the apostles, but rather he traveled to Arabia then back to Damascus. He mentions no preaching in any of these places. After at least three years he goes to Jerusalem for the first time and meets only Peter and James and no other apostles. He stays with them for fifteen days but, once again, he mentions no preaching campaign either with all of the apostles, with some of them, or alone. He also has never been here in the past nor performed a preaching campaign here in the past since he is unknown by face to them and they have "heard only" of his claimed conversion.
Some of the contradictions are:
1) Galatians claims that after his alleged vision, Paul "Immediately" spoke to "no flesh and blood" but rather traveled to Arabia and then to Damascus. So he did not "straightway," if at all, preach boldly in Damascus as claimed by Acts (How long would it take to travel from Damascus to Arabia to Damascus? Could he go and come back "straightway"?).
2) According to Galatians, Paul did not go to Jerusalem where the apostles were. Rather, he went to Arabia then to Damascus. Now, after at least THREE YEARS (not many days), he goes to Jerusalem. It explicitly states that "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles." So this is claimed to be his FIRST visit to Jerusalem after his claimed vision. This FIRST visit is claimed to have occurred at least THREE YEARS after Paul's alleged vision. However, Acts claims that MANY DAYS after his vision he traveled to Jerusalem and performed a bold preaching campaign with all the apostles. Acts also mentions no intermediate journey to Arabia.
3) According to Galatians, upon Paul's arrival in Jerusalem he met Peter and James and no other apostles. He can not have met any apostles in Jerusalem before this because he claims that immediately after his vision "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles" Rather, it claims that he FIRST went to Jerusalem at least "three years" after his claimed vision. On the other hand, Acts claims that the first time he met the apostles was many days after his claimed vision at which time he met ALL of the apostles. This too is obviously his first meeting with them since they all feared him. Notice the words "they were ALL afraid of him." This would not be the case if Peter and James had already met him since even if they had never mentioned him to the other apostles, still, at the very least they themselves (Peter and James) would not fear him. Also notice that it was only Barnabas who stood up for him and not Barnabas, Peter, and James.
4) Galatians claims that after Paul's first visit to Jerusalem all the apostles feared him but then Barnabas convinced them to accept him and they ALL went hand in hand "in and out of Jerusalem" preaching "boldly" to the Jews. However, Acts claims that his first visit to Jerusalem was after THREE YEARS and upon this FIRST visit he met ONLY Peter and James. He is not claimed to have gone with Peter and James on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem, nor could he have done so in the past with ALL of the apostles since if he had done so he would not have been "unknown by face to the churches of Judea," they would also not have "heard only" of his conversion but would have eye-witnessed his bold campaign with all of the apostles with their own eyes.
If the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament can not even keep the narration of his own "salvation" straight then how are we expected to believe him in such critical matters as the "true" meanings of Jesus' words, or other matters?
The fact that Paul never actually met Jesus during his lifetime, never traveled with him, ate with him, or learned directly from him would obviously make the apostles of Jesus the first source of guidance for those followers of Jesus who wished to know what Jesus taught. Jesus' apostles also did not have a previous history of persecuting his followers. The only reason why anyone might want to bypass the apostles to speak to Paul is if Paul began to receive a series of holy visions from Jesus. The apostles did not claim to be receiving visions from Jesus, so obviously, Paul's claims that he was receiving divine visions from Jesus would go a long way towards drawing the followers of Jesus away from them and to his interpretation of the message of Jesus. Paul himself proudly proclaims that he has no need of learning from any human being, not even the apostles, he is completely independent of their knowledge and all he needs is his visions:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Galatians 1:11-12
As we shall soon see, a direct result of this unwillingness to receive anything from the apostles or to learn from them resulted in Paul following the sad trend of never being able to verify his claims through words of Jesus. It is next to impossible to find Paul quoting Jesus when attempting to spread his doctrine, rather, he always refers to his own personal philosophy based upon "visions" he claims to be receiving and inspirations from the Holy Ghost. When he would differ with an apostle on a given matter, he could not claim to have first hand knowledge of the teachings of Jesus since he had never met him. Therefore, he found it necessary to always resort to extensive philosophization and then claim that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were "inspiring" this philosophy. As we shall see below, he claimed to have been singled out from among all of mankind to receive visions denied all of the apostles, and to have been allowed through this inspiration to gain new converts "by all means." He also would claim that "All things are lawful unto me."
The careful reader will notice many other holes in the story of Paul's alleged "conversion." For instance, in Acts 22:9 Paul claims that when he spoke to Jesus (pbuh), those traveling with him "saw the light," but "they heard not the voice." While in Acts 9:7 those who were with Paul are claimed to have "stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Don't take my word for it, by all means "prove all things." The teachings of Christianity as they are known today are built upon the claims of Paul, the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. He is trusted blindly because he claims to have seen Jesus (pbuh) in a heavenly vision, to have been vouched for by the apostle Barnabas, to have met and been accepted by all of the apostles, to have preached with all the apostles boldly in the name of Jesus throughout the land of Judaea, and as a result of this to have endured severe hardship and persecution. However, anyone who would simply read their Bible will find that Paul himself swears in the name of God Almighty that this is a fabrication because Judaea had never even seen his face and had "heard only" of his alleged conversion. Further, he never met any of the apostles save Peter and James. Even with all of this the church insists that we interpret the words of Jesus within the context of Paul's teachings.
There are so many more similar examples of how Paul openly and blatantly made major changes to the religion of Jesus that flagrantly contradicted both the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Another example can be seen in the following analysis: God Almighty commands in the OT:
"This is my Covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant."
Genesis 17:10-14
So, according to the OT, God himself is telling us that His covenant can only be had through circumcision. The significance of circumcision was also noted by Biblical scholars as being not merely an external act:
"This was His own sign and seal that Israel was a chosen people. Through it a man's life was linked with great fellowship whose dignity was it's high consciousness that it must fulfill the purpose of God"
Interpreter's Bible, p. 613
Circumcision was considered of such critical importance to Jewish faith that they would even violate the Sabbath to circumcise their children if the eighth day fell on the Sabbath.
"and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?"
John 7:22
Jesus himself was circumcised on the eighth day just like all faithful Jews:
"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS."
Luke 2:21
John the Baptist was also circumcised (Luke 1:59). After the departure of Jesus, circumcision became an issue of personal conflict between the apostle Peter who insisted upon it (preach to Jews only) and Paul who wanted to do away with it (preach to non-Jews also).
"I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised."
Galatians 2:7
Paul then goes into great details about how the apostles were wrong and he was right and how even Barnabas followed in their "hypocrisy" and it was necessary for him to show the apostles the truth (in the King James Version, the actual word used by Paul in Galatians 2:13 is diplomatically translated as "dissimulation.." However, in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was compiled from more ancient manuscripts than the KJV, the word Paul used is honestly translated as "hypocrisy").
Paul now mentions James (James the Son of Thunder, James the Just), Peter (the Rock), and Barnabas (Paul's teacher and protector) in the following manner:
"I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel."
Galatians 2:14
So now it becomes apparent from Paul's words that, in addition to all the above, the apostles were also misguided. It would have been interesting to have heard for instance Barnabas' version of these matters had he been chosen as the "majority author" of the Bible rather than Paul. According to many similar passages, it seems that the apostles were constantly in need of Paul's guidance to recognize the truth. To get Barnabas' version of these matters, his opinion of Paul, as well as what really happened at the cross look for "The Gospel of Barnabas," ISBN 0089295-133-1, at your local library, or obtain your copy from one of the addresses listed at the back of this book.
It is interesting to note that Paul himself was not even sure about his own "visions." We read:
"It is expedient for me to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.."
2 Corinthians 12:1-5
So Paul did not know if the man in his "visions" was "in the body" or "out of the body." Paul's vision also contained "unspeakable words" which were "not lawful for a man to utter."
If I told you that I had seen someone in a "vision," had heard "unspeakable words that are not lawful to utter" in this vision, and had been commanded by this person to nullify the commandments which Jesus (pbuh) had upheld his whole life and had commanded mankind to uphold till the end of time, who would you say this described? Who had I seen?
God Almighty says in the Qur'an:
"And if it be said unto them: Follow that which Allah has revealed, they say: Nay, but we follow that wherein we found our fathers. What! Even though the devil was inviting them to the torture of the fire?"
The noble Qur'an, Lukman(31):21.
What is wrong with this picture? Even if we were to disregard Paul's sworn admission of fabrication and were to accept the established beliefs of Paul's inspiration and infallibility (a very big "if"), then we are still left with the following picture:
Paul, a man who according to his own admission "beyond measure" severely persecuted countless Christians "slaughtered" them, and also "wasted" the church (Galatians 1:13-15, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 9:41, Acts 6:5.. etc.), a man who never met Jesus face to face, underwent a miraculous conversion from a persecutor and killer of Christians into a more perfect teacher of Christianity than the apostles themselves. He was singled out by Jesus' ghost to receive "visions" which were denied the apostles who had accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime (Galatians 1:10-12). Paul had acquired such a terrible reputation as a persecutor of Christians that no one was willing to accept his claims of conversion. It was only the intervention of the apostle Barnabas, who's words obviously carried a great deal of weight with the rest of the apostles, which allowed the apostles to grudgingly accept him. Barnabas then traveled extensively with Paul building up his reputation among the Jews as a true convert. Once Paul acquired a reputation of his own, he had a falling out with Barnabas (Acts 15:39, Galatians 2:13). They parted company. Paul now claimed that Jesus (pbuh) wanted him to "relax" the law in order to make it a little more palatable for new converts, and this is when Paul began to make drastic changes to the law of Jesus (pbuh).
Paul decided that his visions were sufficient authority to contradict the teachings of the apostles and consider them hypocrites. Even Barnabas, the apostle who traveled with Paul teaching him and preaching to the Jews, who was willing to accept this persecutor of Christians claims of conversion at face value, and the man who single handedly convinced all of the apostles to accept this same persecutor of Christians is now considered by Paul a hypocrite and less able to understand the religion of Jesus (pbuh) than himself. Paul also believed that
"...I labored more abundantly than they (the apostles) all"
1 Corinthians 15:10.
So, the apostles of Jesus were such lazy layabouts that Paul was doing more work than all eleven of them put together. All of this even though the apostles spent countless years with Jesus (pbuh) learning directly from him while Paul, who has never met Jesus in person, practically overnight transforms from a persecutor and killer of Christians and the apostles to a more perfect teacher of Christianity than the apostles themselves. It is quite lucky for us that Paul received these "visions," otherwise we might have been lead astray by the lazy, misguided, hypocritical apostles. For Barnabas' version of these matters, read "The Gospel of Barnabas."
Let us time out for a quick analyses of the above verses:
1. Jesus (pbuh), during his lifetime on earth, commands mankind to strictly and uncompromisingly observe the religion of Moses till the end of time (Matthew 5:18). He tells them that observing the religion of Moses and selling their belongings shall make them "prefect." (Luke 18:18-22). 2. After the departure of Jesus, Paul, according to his own admission "beyond measure" severely persecuted countless Christians, strove to "slaughter" them, and also "wasted" the church (Galatians 1:13-15, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, Acts 9:41, Acts 6:5, Acts 22:4,.. etc.). Paul also looked on with satisfaction as the apostle Stephen was stoned to death (Acts 22:20). 3. Paul receives "visions" and is saved (Acts 22:9, Acts 9:7...etc.) 4. Paul is not sure exactly what he saw in his visions. His visions also contained "unspeakable words that it is unlawful to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:1-5) 5. Paul tells us that the person in his visions was Jesus (pbuh). He declares that he received his teachings of "Christianity" from these visions and from no one else, not even the apostles (Galatians 1:12). In other words, he has no need of learning from the apostles. His visions are higher in authority than anything they might have to say. He then goes on to show everyone how the apostles of Jesus are constantly in need of his guidance to recognize the truth (e.g. Galatians 2:11-13) 6. Paul claims that all things are made lawful to him and he shall not follow anyone (1 Corinthians 6:12). He also claims that he shall do whatever it takes to get people to follow him, no matter what that might entail (1 Corinthians 9:20-22). 7. The apostles differ with Paul regarding the "truth" of the circumcision ordained by God and other matters.(1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 2:7...etc.). 8. The apostles, according to Paul, did not walk "uprightly" according to the "truth of the Gospel" and were lazy, misguided, hypocrites (1 Corinthians 15:10, Galatians 2:14, Galatians 2:13). 9. Most of the books of the New Testament are written by Paul himself. In them, Paul himself gives an unblushing pronouncement of how he was a vastly superior apostle of Jesus (pbuh) than the apostles who accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his ministry and they all needed his guidance to see the "truth" of Jesus' message and how Jesus (pbuh) and the apostles eagerly appointed him the twelfth apostle.
Summary: If the apostles who lived, preached, ate, and drank with Jesus for so many years are all, according to Paul, lazy, misguided, hypocrites, who were not able to see the "truth" of Jesus' message as clearly as himself, and if Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh but is the author of the majority of our New Testament, is more truly guided than all of the apostles combined because of his claimed "visions" even though he never quotes Jesus nor needs to learn from the apostles, but is, according to his own gospel, more truly guided than all of them despite all of this, then why did Jesus need to preach the law of Moses to mankind at all? Why did he himself observe it so strictly? According to Paul, Jesus' only use is as a body to be hung on the cross. Jesus (pbuh) felt it necessary to command his followers to strictly and uncompromisingly observe the law of Moses. He even felt it necessary to live his life in strict observance of this law as a supreme example for us. He never once explicitly mentioned an original sin, an atonement, a crucifixion, a redemption, or a nullification of the law of Moses. However, no sooner does Jesus depart this earth than Paul uses his claimed visions to completely nullify everything Jesus ever taught and practiced. He does not need to learn from the apostles, all he needs is his visions. That is indeed why he almost never quotes Jesus himself. He always resorts to his own philosophization rather than quoting Jesus. Why then did Jesus not simply come to earth right after Adam sinned, not say a single word, quickly anger some enemies of God, let them crucify him, and have it over with quickly? Even if Jesus decided to wait hundreds of thousands of years and only come 2000 years ago, then why preach a law that is going to be thrown out the window in only a couple of years? Why observe this law so devoutly himself? Why command everyone to strictly observe this law "till heaven and earth pass"? Why threaten them that anyone who would forsake a single commandment would be called "the least in the kingdom of heaven"? Is he not going to die for everyone's sins and then come back in exclusive visions to Paul and command him to nullify the law of Moses? Is he not going to come back in visions to Paul and command him to tell everyone that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."? Why not preach such a doctrine himself while he is still among his apostles instead of waiting to first mention it to Paul in a vision after his death?
These apostles that Paul looked down upon as lazy misguided hypocrites are the selfsame apostles who had accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime, who taught all of mankind (including Paul himself) the teachings of Jesus (pbuh), and who endured the persecution of many (including Paul himself) to convey this message without compromise, as Jesus had directly taught it to them. The Pauline Church (the Roman Catholic church which later gave birth to other churches such as the Protestant church) was to later go on and officially adopt the doctrine of the Trinity a couple of centuries after the departure of Jesus, to severely condemn, persecute, and kill any Christians who did not convert to their own personal brand of Christianity, to have presided over the death of millions of Christians who did not adopt this belief. To have presided over the destruction of many hundreds of "unacceptable" gospels (some sources claim thousands) some of which were written by the apostles themselves, and to have issued death warrants for all those found concealing them... and on and on.
Even with all of this, the Gospel of Barnabas (see chapter seven) has managed to escape this campaign of destruction of the Gospels and is available today. It confirms all that we have said and what the Qur'an has been saying for centuries. It also presents Barnabas' response to Paul's claims and his account of what truly happened at the cross and how Jesus (pbuh) was not forsaken by God to the Jews, but was raised by God, and Judas the traitor was made to look like Jesus (pbuh) and was taken in his place. Barnabas, of course, accompanied Jesus (pbuh) and was an eye-witness to his mission. Paul was not.
Getting back to our story... Paul had a falling out with the apostles and decided that "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" 1 Corinthians 7:19. Even though circumcision was held in an even higher regard than the Sabbath itself in the law of Moses and the "commandments of God," still, Paul taught that it is possible to keep the commandments even if, contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, this foremost commandment of circumcision was abandoned.
In the end, Paul decided that all the commandments of God through Moses (pbuh) which Jesus (pbuh) had kept faithfully till the crucifixion and which the apostles had also kept were all worthless decaying and ready to vanish away and faith was all that was required, thereby completely nullifying everything his "Lord" Jesus had taught and practiced during his lifetime.
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Romans 3:28
He decided that the laws of Moses (pbuh) (e.g. "thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, ...etc.") which Jesus (pbuh) had taught the faithful during his lifetime were a "curse" upon them and no longer necessary,
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law."
Galatians 3:13
He then went about explaining the "true" meanings of the teachings of Jesus and Paul's preachings are what are now known as "Christianity."
Paul himself readily admits that he was both willing and able to recruit new converts by any means at his disposal:
"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law(Gentiles), as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law"
1 Corinthians 9:20
and "...I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some"
1 Corinthians 9:22
and "...all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."
1 Corinthians 6:12
We have already seen how Paul also openly admits that his teachings were not obtained from the apostles of Jesus, but from a vision of Jesus denied the apostles: Galatians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." So, not only are the apostles of Jesus, according to Paul, lazy, misguided, hypocrites, but everything they ever learned from Jesus is in Paul's estimation unnecessary. What they have learned from Jesus from direct contact with him is only useful in as far as it conforms to his "visions." In other words, they have need to learn from him and not vice-versa.
The great apostle of Jesus (pbuh), Barnabas (the defender and benefactor of Paul), in the opening statements of his Gospel has the following to say about Paul among others:
"True Gospel of Jesus, called Messiah, a new prophet sent by God to the world according to the description of Barnabas his apostle. Barnabas, apostle of Jesus the Nazarene, called Messiah, to all them that dwell upon the earth desire peace and consolation. Truly beloved, the great and wonderful God has in these past days visited us by His apostle Jesus (the) Messiah in great mercy of teaching and miracles, by reason whereof many, being deceived by Satan, under pretense of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus the Son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained by God forever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul has been deceived, whereof I speak not without grief: for which cause I am writing the truth which I have seen and heard, in the fellowship that I have had with Jesus, in order that you may be saved, and not be deceived by Satan and perish in judgment of God. Therefore, beware of everyone that preaches to you a new doctrine contrary to that which I write, that you may be saved eternally. The great God be with you and guard you from Satan and from every evil. Amen."
Paul himself admits that there were those who were preaching a different Gospel than his own and were gaining converts. He does not name his adversaries, but we can read about his most noble adversaries in two places wherein Paul uses what Prof. Brandon calls "very remarkable terms" to describe them. The first is
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Galatians 1:6-9
The second is "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things."
2 Corinthians 11:3-6
These opponents of Paul were clearly preaching "another Gospel" and "another Jesus," they were also obviously operating among Paul's own target group and converting his converts. All of this even though their teachings did not exhibit the "simplicity" that Paul preached but required their followers to work for their salvation. However, Paul displays amazing restraint when referring to them by not lambasting them with the vehemence of speech which he is so capable nor questioning their authority. Rather, he gives a clue to their identity with the words: "...For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" and "we, or an angel from heaven," and "unto another gospel: Which is not another."
As we have seen in previous chapters, Christian scholars today agree that the very first Christians, including the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) were all Unitarians who followed the religion of Moses, and that the Trinity was not introduced until around the beginning of the second century. These Unitarians enjoyed a large following and spread throughout much of North Africa among other places. During this period, any Roman or Greek gentile who wanted to enter into Christianity pretty much was allowed to choose which "Christianity" he wanted. The one preached by Barnabas and the apostles which involved a strict and disciplined law of Moses (pbuh), or the much more simplistic "New covenant" of Paul which only required "faith in Jesus" and which was later made more appealing to them by the Pauline Church by incorporating a "Trinity" and other changes into it so that it would more closely resemble the Roman and Greek established beliefs of multiple Gods and father-Gods and son-Gods and Demi-Gods and Goddesses ...etc. Toland says in his book The Nazarenes: "...amongst the Gentiles, so inveterate was the hatred of the Jews that their observing of anything, however reasonable or necessary, was sufficient motive for a Gentile convert to reject it." (From: Jesus, Prophet of Islam) If Paul wanted to convert these people, he would need to compromise, he would need to make Christianity a little more appealing to them, which he, and his church, did.
One of these first Unitarian Christians was a man by the name of Irenaeus (130-200 AD). Mr. Muhammad Ata' Ur Rahim tells us in his book "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" that he was one of the first Christians to be killed because of their adherence to the unity of God. He is quoted as saying the following regarding the unending attempts to tamper with the Bible: "In order to amaze the simple and such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of Truth, they obtrude upon them an inexpressible multitude of apocryphal and spurious scriptures of their own devising" (the Gospels in our possession today).
When the Pauline Church gained power and influence in Rome these Unitarian Christians were officially condemned, persecuted and killed. An attempt was made to totally obliterate them and their books by forcing them to accept the Trinity or else to be killed as heretics and by burning their Gospels. Over a million of these Unitarian Christians were then put to death because of their refusal to compromise their belief. In spite of this, their beliefs have survived even to this day. When Islam came with the call to one God and the belief in Jesus (pbuh) and his miracles, these Unitarian Christians were among the first people to recognize the word of God and accept Islam.
So thorough has Paul and his church been in totally eradicating all of the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and his first apostles that very little has survived. Not even Jesus' (pbuh) preferred method of greeting his followers. From ancient times, the prophets of God including Moses, Joseph, David, Jesus, the angels of God and many others including God himself have made it their custom to greet the believers with the words "Peace be with you." This can be seen in such verses as Genesis 43:23, Judges 6:23, 1 Samuel 25:6, Numbers 6:26, 1 Samuel 1:17, Luke 24:36, John 20:19, John 20:26, and especially Luke 10:5:
"And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house"
to name a few.
Can anyone guess what Muhammad (pbuh) taught his followers to say when greeting each other or departing from each other? You guessed it! "Assalam alaikum" or "Peace be unto you." Have you ever met a Christian who greets other Christians with the words of Jesus (pbuh): "Peace be unto you"?
So, what do the scholars have to say about Paul?:
Heinz Zahrnt calls Paul "the corrupter of the Gospel of Jesus." From "The Jesus Report," Johannes Lehman, p. 126.
Werde describes him as "The second founder of Christianity." He further says that due to Paul: "...the discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the Church became so great that any unity between them is scarcely recognizable"
"The Jesus Report," Johannes Lehman, p. 127.
Schonfield wrote: "The Pauline heresy became the foundation of the Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate Church was disowned as heretical."
"The Jesus Report," Johannes Lehman, p. 128.
Mr. Michael H. Hart, in his book "The 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," places Muhammad (pbuh) in first place, next comes Paul, and Jesus (pbuh) after Paul. Like most other western scholars besides himself, he recognizes Paul as being more deserving of credit for "Christianity" than "Christ" himself.
Grolier's encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Christianity": "After Jesus was crucified, his followers, strengthened by the conviction that he had risen from the dead and that they were filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, formed the first Christian community in Jerusalem. By the middle of the 1st century, missionaries were spreading the new religion among the peoples of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, and Italy. Chief among these was Saint Paul, who laid the foundations of Christian theology and played a key role in the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect to a world religion. The original Christians, being Jews, observed the dietary and ritualistic laws of the Torah and required non-Jewish converts to do the same. Paul and others favored eliminating obligation, thus making Christianity more attractive to Gentiles."
Dr. Arnold Meyer says: "If by Christianity we understand faith in Christ as the heavenly Son of God, who did not belong to earthly humanity, but who lived in the divine likeness and glory, who came down from heaven to earth, who entered humanity and took upon himself a human form through a virgin, that he might make propitiation for men's sins by his own blood upon the cross, who was then awakened from death and raised to the right hand of God, as the Lord of his own people, who believe in him, who hears their prayers, guards and leads them, who will come again with the clouds of heaven to judge the world, who will cast down all the foes of God, and will bring his own people with him unto the home of heavenly light so that they may become like His glorified body - if this is Christianity, then such Christianity was founded by St. Paul and not by our Lord"
Dr. Arnold Meyer, Professor of Theology, Zurich University, Jesus or Paul, p. 122
As we can see, this information is not new. It has been well recognized and documented for centuries now. Even centuries ago, it was well known that most of what was claimed by the church could not be verified through the Bible. Thus, a shift was made from obtaining ones inspiration from the Bible to obtaining it from the "Bride of Jesus," the Church. Fra Fulgentio, for instance, was once reprimanded by the Pope in a letter saying "Preaching of the Scriptures is a suspicious thing. He who keeps close to the Scriptures will ruin the Catholic faith." In his next letter he was more explicit: "...which is a book if anyone keeps close to will quite destroy the Catholic faith." Tetradymus, John Toland (From: Jesus a Prophet of Islam)
As we have just seen, all of this started with one lone man, with Paul. It stands to reason that one would wish to study the life, beliefs, and teachings of this man in order to verify if the claims he made were indeed true. Paul claims that he was a prophet of God and/or Jesus. We find this for example in Galatians:
"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ … But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen"
Galatians 1:12-16
Thus, if Paul tells us in the books of the Bible that he is a prophet, then he can be only one of two kinds of prophet; either a true prophet or a false prophet. Thus, we must take Paul to trial and have the court decide for us what sort of prophet he is.
Due to the magnitude of that which is at stake in this trial, it would be highly unjust to allow personal prejudices to cloud the outcome of the proceedings. For this reason, justice demands that the judge be one who's integrity and truthfulness can be readily and unhesitantly accepted by all. For this reason, our judge and jury in this matter shall consist of only two individuals: God Almighty and Jesus Christ. Further, only one single exhibit shall be brought into evidence, namely, the Bible. Let us then clear our minds and hearts of all prejudices and let only God and Jesus tell us what to accept and what to reject. Are we agreed? Then let us begin.
Let us start the proceedings with the words of God. He says:
"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."
Deuteronomy 18:22
Now let us move on and obtain the witness of Jesus (pbuh):
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
Matthew 24:24
Jesus (pbuh) continues …
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Matthew 7:15-23
Now that the base criteria have been laid out by God and then His elect messenger Jesus Christ (pbuh), let us now bring into evidence the words of Paul in the Bible and allow them to speak for themselves. In order to do this we shall break up the criteria set forth by God and Jesus above into seven points. They are:
1. A false prophet's prophesies do not come true. 2. False Christs and false prophets can show great signs and wonders that can deceive the very elect. 3. False prophets bring forth evil fruits. 4. A false prophet would claim that it is enough to say to Jesus Lord to be righteous. 5. A false prophet would prophesy in Jesus' name. 6. A false prophet can cast out devils and do wonderful works. 7. A false prophet would be turned away and cursed by Jesus.
Regarding the first criteria, we bring into evidence the words of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 regarding his prophesy of the second coming of Jesus. Paul says:
"For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."
1 Thessalonians 4:15-16
Paul in this prophesy was in effect telling his followers that Jesus would be descending from heaven any second now. Paul and his followers would then be taken up into the air and meet Jesus in the clouds. He was telling them that this shall happen while they are still alive and breathing. Did this come to pass? No! It was a false prophesy. Two thousand years have passed since and not only has he and those he was speaking to turned to dust, but countless generations of their followers too have passed away and we still await his prophesy to come true.
Let us now study the second criteria. Now, we have to realize that it is Paul himself and his church after him who are telling us of his claimed miracles, however, we shall accept them at face value and take their word for it. In Acts 27, Paul is claimed to have been saved by an angel from a drowning ship. In Acts 28, Paul is claimed to have cured many of dysentery. Further acts of healing are claimed in Acts 19. Because of these claimed miracles, many people were claimed to have believed in him. As we have seen in the previous pages, it only took roughly three centuries for Paul's teachings to take firm hold of the very elect and divert them from the original message of Jesus, from his original teachings, from the observance of the Mosaic law, and from the continuation of the observance of this law in the synagogues and Temple of the Jews just as the very first apostles had done (Acts 2:46).
The third criteria draws our attention to Paul's words:
"To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Romans 3:26-28
So Paul succeeded in overthrowing the Mosaic law. He completely nullified the law which God, Moses, and Jesus all upheld and commanded their followers to observe till the end of time (see Duet. 6:17-18, Duet. 11:1, Matt. 15:1-15, Matt. 5:17-20, Matt. 19:16-21, etc.)
Indeed, Isaiah 42:21 presents a prophesy that requires the coming prophet to magnify the law of Moses, not destroy it.
In other words, God says:
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Deuteronomy 4:2
And Jesus says:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be Fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:18-19
But now Paul comes along and says:
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law"
Galatians 3:13,
and "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Romans 3:28
Let us move on to the fourth criteria. Paul says:
"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) shall be saved."
Romans 10:12-13
The fifth criteria requires that he prophesy in Jesus' name. And once again, Paul says:
"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Galatians 1:12
So according to Paul, everything he taught was by direct revelation from Jesus.
The sixth criteria requires that Paul cast out devils and do wonderful works. This he claims to have done in Acts 19:11-12.
The seventh criteria draws our attention to Paul's words
"I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee"
Acts 23:6
A fact which Paul very proudly repeats on more than one occasion. To which Jesus (pbuh) responds:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."
Matthew 23:15.
So Jesus (pbuh) labeled the Pharisees "children of Hell."
Further, as we already know, Jesus did indeed "never know" Paul. In fact, Paul new so little of Jesus that he only quoted Jesus directly once throughout his whole ministry (1 Corinthians 11:26). Only a few of Jesus' actual teachings are ever mentioned in Paul's Epistles, and even then they are not attributed to Jesus. They were most likely popular homilies which had been circulated in the community and thus indirectly found their way into his Epistles.
Indeed, Daniel 7:25 describes the very greatest of all false Christs as follows:
"And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
Now, although Paul is not this final False Messiah, and although no Muslim shall ever attempt to make such a claim, still, it is interesting to note the great degree of similarity he exhibits with that most evil of all false prophets. For example, THE False Messiah shall change times and laws, and so too did Paul nullify the Law. THE False Messiah shall speak great words against God, and so too does Paul. For example, the Bible says:
"The law of the LORD [is] Perfect, converting the soul: …The statutes of the LORD [are] right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD [is] pure, enlightening the eyes."
Psalm 19:7-8
And "Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always."
Deuteronomy 11:1
And "For verily I (Jesus) say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:18-19
However, Paul says in Romans 7:6 that the law is dead He further says in Galatians 3:13 that the law is a curse. In Galatians 3:10 he claims that those who labor under the law of God are under a curse. And he claims in Hebrews 8:13 that Gods covenant is old, decaying, and ready to vanish away.
As we can see from the above, both God and Jesus condemn Paul and his teachings in no uncertain terms. They themselves bear witness against him and his innovations which they totally reject and which shall be brought to witness against him on the Day of Judgment. Who better and more unbiased a judge shall we bring to witness against Paul and his innovations that Jesus Christ and God Himself?
Many Christian evangelists who follow the theology of Paul would dearly love to provide salvation for their neighbors. So much so that they can not understand how their neighbors can not see the clear and obvious love God holds for them such that He would actually sacrifice His only begotten son for them. In order to make this clear for their neighbors, they draw many analogies. For example, a Christian gentleman from Canada once sent our local Islamic center a six-page pamphlet titled "God our Heavenly Father," with the goal of demonstrating the love of God to us. His efforts were sincerely appreciated and his message was accepted in the spirit it was sent. However, far from proving his point, this pamphlet only served to thoroughly confuse the issue.
The pamphlet contained a short fictitious story about an Arab man named "Akbar" who was very moral and upright. One day, his son committed a serious crime that deserved capital punishment. The authorities found evidence linking this crime to this man's house. When the authorities came, the father falsely admitted to the crime in order to spare his son. The pamphlet concluded that just as the father's love for his son made him sacrifice himself, in a similar manner, God Almighty's love for mankind drove him to sacrifice Jesus(pbuh).
Now, maybe it is just us, however, at the end of the story we were expecting the parallel to be that God Almighty "the Father" would now sacrifice Himself in order that Jesus "the Son" would not have to die, just as the "Arab" father had sacrificed himself to save his son. Although we appreciated the consideration, still, we could not see the similarity between the two stories.
When a person is good and upright, that person may be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good or for a loved one. For example, if a mother sees her son in danger of being run over by a car, she may very likely run in front of the car in order to save her baby. If she raised the neighbor's child with her own and grew very attached to that child, then she might also be willing to sacrifice herself for the neighbor's child too. She might throw herself in front of the car for the neighbor's child as well. However, have you ever heard of a mother who, when she saw a car about to hit the neighbor's child, threw HER SON in front of the car so that the impact of her son's infant body smashing into the car's windshield would cause it to swerve away from the neighbor's child?
As the Bible says "prove all things, hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21. "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind ... : this is the first commandment." Mark 12:30
I would like nothing more than to present much more supporting evidence of these matters, however, by God's will this sampling shall be sufficient. For a much more detailed historical account of the above issues, collected from the writings of the church itself, I recommend the books:
1. "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" by Muhammad `Ata ur-Rahim, and 2. "Blood on the cross," by Ahmed Thomson.
For a book that is claimed to have remained 100% the inspired word of God, the sheer number of contradicting narrations boggles the mind (see chapter two). These matters have been well known and documented by conservative Christian scholars for a long time now. It is the masses who don't know this. The information is out there for anyone who will simply look for it. The historical inconsistencies and scriptural contradictions are well recognized in this century and countless books have been written about them. However, their studies have always stopped short of the final step. People have generally believed that there is no way to retrieve the original teachings of Jesus (pbuh) after such extensive and continuous revision of the text of the Bible by the Church over so many centuries as well as the Pauline Church's massive campaign of destruction of all gospels not conforming to their personal beliefs. But where human intellect has failed, God has intervened. The Qur'an has been sent down by the same One who sent the original Gospel down upon Jesus (pbuh). It contains the original, unchanged teachings of God. I invite all readers to study the Qur'an just as we have studied the Bible, and to make up their minds if our claims bear merit.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
Where is the great defender of Paul when he need it most? Come on Mr Slippery, Paul is crying in the wilderness.
Tman, you're my friend, but you're spritually insane. I am not a follower of Paul or anybody else, I am a follower of His Majesty, Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of lords. Paul has a testimony just like everybody else who came to know Jesus Christ, Paul will have to come to the Judgement seat of Jesus Christ just like all of us even the Prophet Muhammed will have to appear before the Judgement seat of Jesus Christ, even Moses, I guess you get the picture by now. Christianity is not about Paul or anyone else.
CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON JESUS’ RESURRECTION. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the central fact of Christian history. On it the church is built; without it there would be no Christian church today. Jesus’ resurrection is unique. Other religions have strong ethical systems, concepts about paradise and afterlife, and various holy scriptures. Only Christianity has a God who became human, literally died for his people, and was raised again in power and glory to rule his church forever. Why is the resurrection so important? (1) Because Christ was raised from the dead, we know that the kingdom of heaven has broken into earth’s history. Our world is now headed for redemption, not disaster. God’s mighty power is at work destroying sin, creating new lives, and preparing us for Jesus’ second coming. (2) Because of the Resurrection, we know that death has been conquered, and we too will be raised from the dead to live forever with Christ. (3) The Resurrection gives authority to the church’s witness in the world. Look at the early evangelistic sermons in the book of Acts: the apostles’ most important message was the proclamation that Jesus Christ had been raised from the dead! (4) The Resurrection gives meaning to the church’s regular feast, the Lord’s Supper. Like the disciples on the Emmaus Road, we break bread with our risen Lord, who comes in power to save us. (5) The Resurrection helps us find meaning even in great tragedy. No matter what happens to us as we walk with the Lord, the Resurrection gives us hope for the future. (6) The Resurrection assures us that Christ is alive and ruling his kingdom. He is not a legend; he is alive and real. (7) God’s power that brought Jesus back from the dead is available to us so that we can live for him in an evil world. Christians can look very different from one another, and they can hold widely varying beliefs about politics, lifestyle, and even theology. But one central belief unites and inspires all true Christians-Jesus Christ rose from the dead! (For more on the importance of the Resurrection, see 1 Corinthians 15:12-58.)
HOW DOES SOMEONE BECOME A CHRISTIAN? BIBLE READING: Romans 8:1-11 KEY BIBLE VERSE: You are not controlled by your sinful nature. You are controlled by the Spirit if you have the Spirit of God living in you. (And remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them are not Christians at all.) (Romans 8:9)
YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST MAKES YOU A CHRISTIAN. Have you ever worried about whether or not you really are a Christian? A Christian is anyone who has the Spirit of God living in him. If you have sincerely trusted Christ for your salvation and acknowledged him as Lord, then the Holy Spirit has come into your life, and you are a Christian. You won’t know that the Holy Spirit has come if you are waiting for a certain feeling; you will know he has come because Jesus promised he would. When the Holy Spirit is working within you, you will believe that Jesus Christ is God’s Son and that eternal life comes through him (1 John 5:5); you will begin to act as Christ directs (Romans 8:5; Galatians 5:22-23); you will find help in your daily problems and in your praying (Romans 8:26-27); you will be empowered to serve God and do his will (Acts 1:8; Romans 12:6ff.); and you will become part of God’s plan to build up his church (Ephesians 4:12-13).
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Tman, where there is life there is hope. It's not too late for you my friend. And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved" (Acts 2:21). We need to know what it means to call on the name of the Lord, for our salvation is dependent upon such a calling. Whatever it means to call on the name of the Lord, it is the same thing for everyone. Calling on the name of the Lord can not be one thing for you and another thing for me. Such would make God a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34-35). The Bible must settle this question. Not an endorsement of the false doctrine of salvation by Faith Only. Without a careful study of this statement, some may conclude that salvation is obtained through a verbal appeal, such as, "Lord Jesus, come into my heart and save my soul!" Jesus actually taught the exact opposite. "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). Heaven is not promised on the basis of making a verbal acknowledgement of the Lord. Biblical examples of calling upon the name of the Lord. This phrase is found again in Romans 10:13 - "For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." An examination of the context will show that calling on the name of the Lord comes after hearing and believing the gospel (vs. 13-17). After affirming that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, Paul laments that "they have not all obeyed the gospel" (v. 16). "Calling on the name of the Lord" and "obeying the gospel" are synonymous in this passage. Thus, it is more than a verbal appeal to the Lord for salvation. The Bible actually contains two specific accounts of individuals calling upon the name of the Lord. The first is in Acts 2. When these Jews heard the gospel, and believed that they had crucified the Lord, they asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (v. 37). Peter had told them that those who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. They were wanting to know how to do this. Peter responded, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (v. 38). The second example occurs in Acts 22:16, which gives an account of the conversion of Saul. Ananias came to Saul and said, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Notice, in both of these accounts, submitting to the command of baptism was the means of calling upon the name of the Lord. An appeal to the Lord for our salvation. To call on the name of the Lord is to appeal to the authority of the Lord for our salvation, as opposed to trusting in ourselves or appealing to some other source. If we are appealing to the Lord, we will naturally follow the conditions that He set forth. When we meet those conditions, we show that we are relying upon Him to save us on His terms. When the Jews on Pentecost repented and were baptized, they were appealing to the Lord to save them on His terms. When Saul arose and was baptized, he was "calling on the name of the Lord" in that he was submitting to the conditions that the Lord set forth. To use the phrase "to call on the name of the Lord" as a means of denying the necessity of repentance and baptism for salvation is as great a misuse of Scripture as there can ever be. The good news of the gospel is that salvation is available to everyone that calls upon the name of the Lord. This obviously does not mean everyone who calls Jesus "Lord," but everyone who submits to the conditions that He has set forth in His word.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Originally Posted By: Noel2000
Originally Posted By: Tman
Where is the great defender of Paul when he need it most? Come on Mr Slippery, Paul is crying in the wilderness.
Tman, you're my friend, but you're spritually insane. I am not a follower of Paul or anybody else, I am a follower of His Majesty, Jesus Christ, King of Kings, Lord of lords.
Again you wont address the discrepancies like above when Paul admits he lied in his testimony. If Jesus (PBUH) were to come back to earth today he would not recognise what you call Christianity as his teachings. If you knew the history of Christianity as you profess you would know that its the teachings of Paul you are following and not Jesus (PBUH). That is why in the survey on the Crucifiction thread the scholars (not me) name Paul before Jesus (PBUH) as the most influential person.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
What a precious treasure we have in our salvation, in Yahshua,(Jesus) and in the Bible. Sadly, though, there are those who are out to steal all three treasures from us. I personally know of several brethren in my circle of acquaintances who have renounced Yahshua as their Savior. They failed to guard their treasure and their hearts. Those treasures were stolen from them. The theft occurred slowly over time and it all began with doubting the Apostle Paul.
The Ebionite teaching that the Apostle Paul is a false apostle is being revived. If it hasn't touched you yet, it will. This study is actually a refutation to an article entitled, "Paul, The Good, The Bad, The Ugly", as well as other accusations not found in that article. Hopefully, this refutation will prepare you to discern the truth of the matter.
The foundation of the belief that Paul is a false Apostle lies in the inability to harmonize Paul with the rest of the Bible. Rather than waiting on Yahweh to provide understanding concerning Paul's writings, the anti-Paulists prefer to simply dismiss his writings as those of a false teacher. Peter warned us that this would happen.
2 Peter 3:15,16 reads, "And account that the longsuffering of our Master is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
Conveniently, however, anti-Paulists would say that the second epistle of Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter and therefore should not be part of our current New Testament canon. This reveals the extent that they will go. They would discard the entire epistle in order to get rid of two verses in support of Paul. The fact is that no one knows for sure that Peter did not write this second epistle. At this point in time it is simply a theory. I offer two sources which defend Peter as the author of the second epistle; 1 , 2.
Historical Arguments
Anti-Paulists have no choice but to discard "The Acts of the Apostles" as well because it, too, contains pro-Paul statements. Luke, for example, calls Paul an "apostle" twice in one chapter (Acts 14:4, 14). The anti-Paulist says of those two verses;
"By this time in the record, Luke would have been very familiar with Paul calling himself an apostle and was no doubt in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record as recognizing his apostleship!"
Luke is also the only one in the Bible who goes on record to describe the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Feast of Weeks). Should we doubt that account because only Luke records it? Of course not.
According to Yahshua's words to Ananaias, Paul was specifically chosen by Yahshua to bear his name before the Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15). In other words, he was sent by Yahshua which is what the word "apostle" means. We see Paul's actual separation as a sent one (apostle) in Acts 13:1-4 where the Holy Spirit spoke to the prophets and teachers in the Antioch congregation.
"Now there were in the assembly that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Master, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus."
It was actually the Holy Spirit that separated Barnabas and Paul for the work. Was the Holy Spirit incorrect in doing that?
Anti-Paulists will attempt to discredit Luke and Paul by showing how the three accounts of Paul's conversion differ from one another. Acts 9:7 says the men traveling with Paul "heard a voice". Acts 22:9 says of those same men, "they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me".
I offer three possible reasons for this difference;
1) One voice spoke to Paul while a different voice spoke to the rest saying something like, "Fear not"
2) They heard the same voice, but could not hear the actual words that were spoken
3) They heard all the words, but did not understand. The Greek word for "hear" can have the meaning of "understand" as in Jn. 8:43,47. The NIV uses the word "understand" in Acts 22:9, basing it upon the Greek text which reads differently.
9:7 - akouontes men tes phones
22:9 - ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi
Here are the notes from Dr. James R. White (a Greek scholar) in his book entitled, "Scripture Alone", pg.160:
"First, in 9:7 akouo, the verb that means "to hear," is a nominative plural participle; in 22:9 it is a plural aorist verb.
Second, in 9:7 phone, a "sound" or "voice," is a singular genetive noun; in 22:9 it is a singular accusative noun.
Third, in 9:7 akouo precedes its object; in 22:9 it follows its object. Fourth, in 9:7 the phrase is not modified; in 22:9 it is modified by "of the one speaking to me."
Finally, in 9:7 Luke is narrating an event in Greek; in 22:9 Paul is speaking to a crowd in Hebrew or Aramaic . . ."
The context of Acts 22:9 suggests that the reason the men did not hear the voice is because the voice was speaking to Paul in Hebrew, which they did not understand. Remember, Paul said they did not hear the voice and then says, "of the one speaking to me."
That either Paul or Luke was lying is not a valid choice.
Acts 29:9-18 is the third conversion account wherein Paul goes into greater detail as to what Yahshua said to him. These differences in Paul's conversion account lead anti-Paulists to doubt his apostleship.
I don't know about you, but when I give my testimony to people, it never comes out the same. I share more info with certain people than with others based on who I'm talking to and how much time I have to give my testimony. To accuse Paul of lying to King Agrippa when giving his testimony for the third time is outrageous to say the least.
Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of lying in Acts 23:6. It reads as follows:
"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."
They contend that he was not called in question over the resurrection, but simply lied in order to save himself. Let's look back and see what the original cause was. In Acts 21:28, Paul was falsely accused of bringing Greeks into the temple. I say "falsely" because his accusers only "supposed" that Paul brought Trophimus into the temple (Acts 21:29).
As Paul was being led away, he asked to speak to the people. He then began to recount his conversion in which he told them the resurrected Savior spoke to him. This speech took place in Jerusalem where everyone was well aware of the events that took place in putting Yahshua to death. By saying Yahshua spoke to him after his death, Paul was confirming his resurrection, through which all believers have hope in a future resurrection. Is that not what Paul said in Acts 23:6: "of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question"? Eventually, the mob cried out, "Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live" (Acts 22:22).
Paul is then taken before the Sanhedrin where he makes an honest mistake in rebuking the high priest out of ignorance of his identity (Acts 23:2-5). Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of lying here as well. They say he had to know it was the high priest because he knew he was his judge and he knew the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul, however, had been absent from Jersualem for quite a while, during which a change in the high priest may have been made. High priests at that time were set up at the whim of the Roman government for political reasons. Additionally, any number of other circumstances may have led to Paul's ignorance in this matter.
What saddens me is that the anti-Paulists do not give Paul the benefit of the doubt in anything. They are so quick to condemn Paul in every little point they can dig up.
Paul's ensuing comments in verse 6 were perfectly true, for that is the real reason why any believer is persecuted. That is why they falsely accused Stephen in Acts 6:11-12 as well as Paul in Acts 21:28.
The Sanhedrin were well aware of that because they were guilty of such persecution for that very reason. Acts 22:4-5 read as follows:
"And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished."
Paul was commissioned by the high priest and the council of elders to imprison as many of Yahshua's followers as he could find. See also Acts 9:1-2.
Anti-Paulists continue their attack on Paul by showing how he fulfills Mt.10:16-18. It reads,
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles."
The accounts of Saul's persecution of believers certainly seem to fulfill those verses, but does Paul's actions prior to his conversion really matter? What about the prediction Yahshua made in Mt.26:34?
"Yahshua said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."
Should we also consider Peter a false apostle based on his actions prior to conversion? What about each of us? Were we not forgiven of much at our conversion? So, too, should Saul of Tarsus be forgiven.
Paul is also accused of lying to the Galatians. To understand this false accusation, we need to first read Acts 15:19-29;
"Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to [Elohim]; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath. Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote thus by them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Master Yahshua Messiah."
Please note that James calls Paul and Barnabas "beloved". Do the anti-Paulists seek to throw James out of the NT canon as well?
"We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if you keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare you well."
Here is what the anti-Paulists then say;
"There are actually several things going on here but first I want to focus on the instructions of the council. They instruct Paul to write to the churches that they avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and from meat with blood, and from fornication (or idolatry). This is very clear. So what did Paul write to the churches about his instructions from Jerusalem?"
Galatians 2:7-10 (NASB95)
7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor the very thing I also was eager to do.
WHOA! What just happened? Paul admits to being in Jerusalem. He admits to having met the apostles. He brags that they accepted him as a brother and then concludes that all they asked us to do was remember the poor which I will gladly do. Where did this come from? Did the council ask Paul to tell the churches to remember the poor? NO! The council told Paul to write to the churches to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and from fornication (idolatry). Did Paul flat out lie here? Again, we will note that Paul not only refused to pass along the warning from Jerusalem but he actually taught the OPPOSITE to the churches (that is that it is ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols)."
There are actually several accusations here. I'll address the last one first. They said, " Again, we will note that Paul not only refused to pass along the warning from Jerusalem . . ." Is that true? One need only continue reading Acts 15:30-31;
"So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. And when they had read it, they rejoiced for the consolation."
Acts 16:4-5 read as follows:
"And as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered them the decrees to keep which had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem. So the assemblies were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily."
So was Paul actually lying? No. It's the anti-Paulist's who have grossly erred in assuming and falsely accusing Paul.
The other false accusation of Paul lying concerns the reference to Gal.2:7-10. Paul said, " They only asked us to remember the poor the very thing I also was eager to do" (vs.10). The anti-Paulist responds with,
"WHOA! What just happened? Paul admits to being in Jerusalem. He admits to having met the apostles. He brags that they accepted him as a brother and then concludes that all they asked us to do was remember the poor which I will gladly do. Where did this come from? Did the council ask Paul to tell the churches to remember the poor? NO! The council told Paul to write to the churches to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols and from fornication (idolatry). Did Paul flat out lie here?"
The answer to the last question is no, he did not lie. Paul was writing a letter to the Galatian assembly. The council never said their decrees were for all Gentile congregations, but only for the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23). Paul had no reason to give those decrees to the Galatians because the council never told him to. I mention more about this later.
Anti-Paulists also use Gal.2:6 to show Paul's supposed lack of respect of the other twelve apostles and how they have no authority over Paul. Gal.2:6 reads thusly:
"But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: [Elohim] accepts not man's person)--they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:"
One anti-Paulist then says,
"Here Paul goes full board in his lack of respect for the twelve. Paul says of the twelve that they seem to be important but that it makes no difference to me. In other words the twelve apostles aren't important to Paul despite their apparent positions of authority. He then brags again that they ADDED NOTHING to his message. Paul wants to really drive the point home that the apostles mean little to him and wants his audience to know that he does not take direction from them nor has he been taught anything by them."
These remarks are based on divorcing verse 6 from the context which includes verses 3-5.
"But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Messiah Yahshua, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
Paul was not attacking the other twelve apostles. He was referring to false brethren that snuck in to teach their doctrine of salvation by works.
To further compound their error, the anti-Paulists fail to cross reference properly. They say,
"There is one other point often overlooked in the decision of the Jerusalem council and that is that the apostles apparently didn't have full trust in Paul and thought it necessary to send someone along with him as a witness to what he was teaching. In the letter which the council drafts they say:
Acts 15:24-27 (NASB95)
24 "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, 25 it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth.
The council's letter acknowledges that Paul has received no instruction from them but has been preaching on his own. Remember, Paul himself bragged about that. The council also acknowledges that what Paul is teaching has been disturbing those who hear him."
The anti-Paulist applies verse 24 to Paul when, in reality, it is a reference to Acts 15:1, 2, 5, 6 which read as follows:
"And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." . . . "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter."
Verse 24 is referring to the legalistic Pharisees which believed in justification by works, and were teaching the same. They were of the "number" of Jews in Judea where the Apostles were from. They went to Antioch to preach their false doctrine without the Apostles instruction to do so. The council sent their "beloved" Barnabas and Paul to correct the problem.
Anti-Paulists teach that all the believers in Asia turned away from Paul and tried to kill him. They write;
"Now to the meat of the matter! First I will prove from the accepted canon and from Paul's words himself that he was rejected in all the churches of Asia."
Acts 19:8-10 (NASB95)
8 And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 This took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.
Before we saw that Paul reasoned with the Jews in the synagogues but now we hear a little more of the story. Paul continued to preach in Ephesus but he wasn't well received for long for Luke records that some there began to speak evil of the Way before the people and that they had to withdraw from them. Putting aside the good and bad for a moment the facts are that Paul preached in Ephesus but eventually had to leave as they turned against him."
Who turned against Paul in the above passage, believers or hardened and disobedient, unbelieving Jews in the synagogue? Who was Paul reasoning with and persuading about the Kingdom of Elohim? Believers were already persuaded and embraced the Kingdom through Yahshua. It was the unbelieving Jews who needed persuading and who turned against Paul.
The anti-Paulist continues;
"2 Corinthians 1:8-10 (NASB95)
8 For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life; 9 indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; 10 who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us,
Paul admits that while in Asia that things got so bad they had the sentence of death put on them. In other words, the believers in Asia were going to kill Paul and his companions!"
These verses refer to the wrath of the Ephesians after Paul said their goddess Diana was no mighty one at all. Let's pick up the account in Acts 19:28-32.
"And when they heard this they were filled with wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesus. And the city was filled with the confusion: and they rushed with one accord into the theatre, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel. And when Paul was minded to enter in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not. And certain also of the Asiarchs, being his friends, sent unto him and besought him not to adventure himself into the theatre. Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was in confusion; and the more part knew not why they were come together."
This mob wasn't thinking. They were wild with resentment and wrath. If the town clerk hadn't calmed them down in verses 35-41, they may have rashly put Paul and his companions to death.
The thing that is so unbelievable to me is that the anti-Paulists read 2 Cor.1:8-10 to mean "believers" wanted to kill Paul and his companions. Would any believer go against our Savior's command to love our enemies (Mt.5:44-48) by killing them? Can you picture any believer in Acts killing anybody? Believers are sheep to be slaughtered, not slaughterers of the sheep.
The anti-Paulist also appeals to 2 Tim.1:15. They say,
"2 Timothy 1:15 (NASB95)
15 You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes.
Now Paul tells us that ALL of those in Asia turned away from him. Paul had to flee Ephesus for some reason and all the believers in Asia wanted him killed."
We are not told why they turned from Paul. I suspect it was a result of what took place at Ephesus. The weaker believers feared for their lives and fled from Paul because he was the lightning rod of that entire wrath. Does that sound familiar? Did not all of Messiah's disciples turn from him out of fear for their lives? Does that make Yahshua a false Messiah? Neither does it make Paul a false apostle.
The last attack on Paul from an historical perspective that I will address comes from the anti-Paulist's pitiful interpretation of Rev.2:1-3. It reads as follows:
"To the angel of the assembly in Ephesus write: These things saith he that holds the seven stars in his right hand, he that walks in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks: I know thy works, and thy toil and patience, and that thou can not bear evil men, and did try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and did find them false; and thou hast patience and did bear for my name's sake, and hast not grown weary. "
The anti-Paulist then says;
Paul is the only one we know of in the accepted canon that went to Asia and specifically preached in Ephesus. Paul writes to the church in Ephesus saying that he is an apostle. . . This same body of believers in Ephesus are now congratulated for testing someone who claimed to be an apostles and were not. Could this be talking about Paul and Barnabas? Were they tested for three months and ultimately rejected as false apostles and ran out of town at threat of death? Did the church of Ephesus eventually conclude that Paul was a liar and was NOT an apostle?
Did you absorb that? Did the Ephesians run Paul and Barnabas out of town as false apostles? Let's read Acts 20:17-22.
"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the assembly. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, after what manner I was with you all the time, serving the Master with all lowliness of mind, and with tears, and with trials which befell me by the plots of the Jews; how I shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance toward [Elohim], and faith toward our Master Yahshua Messiah. And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:"
Paul is about to depart for Jerusalem, but he desires one last meeting with the Elders of the Ephesian congregation. Let's resume in Acts 20:29-38.
"I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears. And now I commend you to [Elohim], and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you the inheritance among all them that are sanctified. I coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. In all things I gave you an example, that so laboring you ought to help the weak, and to remember the words of the Master Yahshua, that he himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down and prayed with them all. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the word which he had spoken, that they should behold his face no more. And they brought him on his way unto the ship."
Does that sound like they found him to be a false apostle or does it sound like they loved him dearly and couldn't bear not seeing him anymore? He left them on very good terms. However, in that meeting he prophesied that grievous wolves would come to Ephesus and not spare the flock. Others would draw away disciples to themselves. The "apostles" Yahshua referred to were most likely these men who were grievous wolves.
Doctrinal Arguments
The anti-Paulists not only attack Paul historically, but doctrinally as well. Let's explore some of the "heresies" that the Apostle Paul supposedly taught.
No One Righteous
In Romans 3:10-12, Paul refers to Psa.14 to prove all have sinned and no one is righteous. Anti-Paulists say Paul misquoted Psa.14. Paul wrote, "There is none righteous, no not one." Psa.14:3 reads, "there is none that doeth good, no not one." There are a few other differences as well. The truth is, Paul was not quoting, but paraphrasing. Even if he was quoting, there are other examples of people not quoting exactly. For example:
Psalm 53 is almost identical to Psalm 14 with the exception of Psa.53:5 and "Elohim" in Psa.53 where Psa.14 has "YHWH". Is David misquoting his own Psalm because it is not an exact quote? Does that make David a false prophet?
In Mt.4:4, Yahshua said:
"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." KJV
Yahshua was quoting Deut.8:3 which reads:
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man does not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Yahweh does man live."
As you can see, Yahshua did not quote this verse perfectly. He left out some words in the beginning and some at the end. Does that make him a false Messiah? Or should we blame Matthew for misquoting Yahshua and throw his book out along with Paul's writings? I'm being sarcastic, of course. The truth is that the meaning and understanding of the Psalm is being carried over by Paul.
Keep in mind that believers in ancient times did not get to carry around the Scriptures wherever they went as we do. They did not have computers to instantly write out a verse stored in its memory. They had to rely on their own memories.
I can guarantee that every anti-Paulist, at one time or another, has misquoted a verse. I wonder if they would consider themselves false brethren because of such a mistake.
Because anti-Paulist's believe Paul falsely used the word "righteous", they will also accuse Paul of teaching falsely because Scripture says Noah, Abraham, David and others were "righteous". Not only does Psa.14:3 read, "they are ALL gone aside, they are ALL together become filthy, but Eccl.7:20 reads,
"Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth, that does good, and sins not."
There were no righteous men on earth based on sinlessness. Was Solomon wrong? Solomon said again, in 1 Kgs 8:46:
"...(for there is no man that sins not,) ..."
The fact is, all the patriarchs sinned as well and therefore were not perfectly righteous in the sense that Yahweh is. They were righteous, not because they never sinned (never transgressed any of Yahweh's commandments), but because they lived by faith, and that faith was imputed to them for righteousness (Gen.15:6).
So why did Paul use "righteous" in Rom.3:10? Because Paul understood as did David and Solomon, that it only takes one sin (one unrighteous act) to become unjust and unrighteous. Since Paul was paraphrasing and not quoting verbatim, he understands "none that does good" to mean "every man has committed an act or acts of unrighteousness." If none do good, none are perfectly righteous. The two words are synonymous in Pr.14:19:
"The evil bow before the good; and the wicked at the gates of the righteous."
Yahshua was sinless. Therefore, he is the only absolutely righteous man that ever lived. His righteousness is imparted to us through faith paving the way for our justification apart from the law.
Justifying the Wicked
In Ex.23:7, Yahweh says, "for I will not justify the wicked." Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of teaching the exact opposite in Rom.4:5 which reads as follows:
"But to him that works not, but believes on him that justifies the wicked, his faith is reckoned for righteousness."
If we read Ex.23:7 in context, including verses 1-6, we will notice that Yahweh precedes His statement in verse 7 with a list of at least ten commands. His meaning in verse 7, therefore, is that He will not justify the wicked in their wickedness. Paul teaches the same thing and intended the same meaning in Rom.4:5.
In Acts 17:30, Paul says the following:
"The times of ignorance therefore [Elohim] overlooked; but now he commands men that they should all everywhere repent:"
Paul calls for the wicked to repent (turn away from their sin). In Rom.4:5, Paul is teaching that Yahweh will justify the wicked after they repent, believe and have faith. This is why Paul quotes from Psalm 32 in Romans 4:7 and says, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered." This is exactly what Yahweh taught in Hab.2:4, "the just shall live by faith."
Call No Man Your Father
Paul wrote, in 1 Cor.4:15;
"For though you have ten thousand tutors in Messiah, yet have you not many fathers; for in Messiah Yahshua I begat you through the gospel."
Anti-Paulists accuse Paul of not obeying Yahshua's command in Mt.23:9 to call no man "father".
However, Yahshua himself and every New Testament writer except Jude used the word "father" in reference to men. James calls Abraham "our father" in Ja.2:21 as did Stephen in Acts 7:2.Therefore, we are not to understand Yahshua's words as anti-Paulists interpret them.
Yahweh says to "honor thy father and thy mother". If I then say, "I would like to honor my father in a special way," am I breaking Yahshua's command? Obviously not, for Yahshua probably had practices similar to the Roman Catholic practice of calling their priests, "Father so and so" in mind.
Justification by Faith or Works?
Anti-Paulists are quick to bring up the supposed contradictions in Paul's teaching of justification by faith alone and what James taught in James 2.
Paul wrote:
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28)
James wrote:
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)
Interestingly, both apostles use the same verse (Gen.15:6) to support their position.
Paul wrote:
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed Elohim, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Rom.4:3)
James wrote:
"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed Elohim, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of Elohim." (James 2:23)
To understand this seeming contradiction, we need to understand that each apostle is looking at justification from a different viewpoint. For example, two people can look at a triangle. One may only see a triangle while the other sees a square! How can that be? They were both viewing a pyramid; one from the side and the other from the top.
Paul is looking at justification in it's initial stage (when a person first believes). James is looking at justification after one first believes. Paul sees Abraham's faith (belief in Yahweh) prior to Abraham's work of offering up Isaac. James sees Abraham's works of offering up Isaac as a fruit of his faith (after he was justified by faith).
James did not say, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith" (James 2:24). He added the word "only" after "faith". In other words, faith comes first, but it cannot stand alone. It must be accompanied by good works.
In writing about justification, Paul was not addressing the believers behavior after having been justified. Had he addressed justification from James' viewpoint, he undoubtedly would have agreed with him. Both apostles believed the words of Habakkuk 2:4b:
"but the just shall live by his faith."
The Greek word "dikaioo", translated "justified" in James 2:24, means "to render (i.e. to show or regard as) just or innocent." Therefore, Abraham was "regarded" by Yahweh as being justified through faith, but he also "showed" he was justified by his works.
Paul the Hypocrite?
Gal.2:11-14 states, "But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, live as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compel thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
1 Cor.9:19-22 read, "For though I was free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to [Elohim], but under law to Messiah, that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."
1 Cor 10:31-33 read, "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of [Elohim]. Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the called out of Elohim: even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved."
The anti-Paulist then says:
"Why does Paul rebuke Peter for not giving offense to the circumcised and yet he himself says we should give no offense to the Jews or the Greeks and that Paul himself had become as a Jew to reach Jews and like a Greek to reach Greeks? Does Paul have a double standard?"
Is Paul being a hypocrite with a double standard? The answer is found in the motive of each man's actions. Paul's motive is found in 1 Cor.9:22:
"To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."
Peter's motive is found in Gal.2:12.
"For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision."
Paul acted out of love and Peter acted out of fear. What does the Apostle John teach about fear?
"There is no fear in love: but perfect love casts out fear, because fear hath torment; and he that fears is not made perfect in love." 1 Jn.4:18
Peter's fear of the Jews led to the fruit of hypocrisy and was a manifestation of a lack of love on his part. Motive is the key.
Circumcision
Now we come to the two most difficult teachings of Paul, circumcision and eating meat sacrificed to idols. First we shall consider circumcision.
Acts 21:27-28 states the following:
"And when the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man that teaches all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place; and moreover he brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath defiled this holy place."
The anti-Paulist then says,
"To me it seems clear that the Jews from Asia are upset with Paul in particular for bringing uncircumcised men into the temple in violation of the words of Ezekiel. "
That is stated as fact by this anti_paulist author. However, in verse 29, Luke says:
"For they had before seen with him in the city Trophimus the Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple."
In other words, Paul was being falsely accused of polluting the temple. They assumed he brought Trophimus into the temple, but they never actually saw him do that. A similar instance can be found where Naboth the Jezreelite was falsely accused of cursing Elohim and the king, and even stoned, yet he had committed no crime (1 Kings 21:5-16).The remaining seven chapters of Acts are all related to Paul's defense against those same false accusations. It is ironic that those same false accusations are being leveled against Paul even today, and by professing brethren in Messiah, nonetheless!.
1 Cor.7:17-20 read as follows:
"Only, as the Master hath distributed to each man, as [Elohim] hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the assemblies. Was any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of [Elohim]. Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called."
The anti-Paulist would then say,
This last statement by Paul in 1 Corinthians is particularly troubling since he clearly seems to indicate that if you are called when you were not circumcised then you should REMAIN uncircumcised. Why then, we must ask, does Paul have Timothy circumcised if, by his own instruction, a man should remain uncircumcised if he was "called" while uncircumcised?
We need to note that 1 Corinthians was written after Paul's first visit to Corinth in Acts 18:1-17. Therefore, Timothy's circumcision in Acts 16 and Titus' avoidance of circumcision referred to in Gal.2:3-5 and which took place in Acts 15, where both before Paul's statements in 1 Cor.17.
Note in Galatians 2:3-5, Paul refused to submit to the false brethren who demanded Titus' circumcision. It reads,
"But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Messiah Yahshua, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
This shows Paul's consistency in his teaching that Gentile converts need not be circumcised. After the Jerusalem council's decision, which agrees with Paul's teaching in that circumcision was not one of the four requirements imposed on Gentiles, Paul has Timothy circumcised. Does this contradict his belief? No.
Timothy was being chosen to accompany Paul in his ministry. Had Timothy remained uncircumcised, it would have been a great hindrance to Paul's ministry to the Jews in that area. Timothy evidently agreed to "become as a Jew to win the Jews."
Paul was not giving a steadfast command to which there could be no exceptions. Since Timothy was not fully a Gentile, his extenuating circumstance warranted a different approach. He was not being circumcised in order to be saved, but so that others would be saved. Had Timothy not been chosen for the ministry, there would have been no need to circumcise him.
Paul was not teaching against circumcision itself, but against circumcision for the wrong reason. To be circumcised in order to be saved or justified is wrong and is a denial of salvation by grace through faith.
Meats Sacrificed To Idols
I would like to conclude this study by examining Paul's stand on eating meats sacrificed to idols. Paul's position is this: seeing that an idol is nothing, there is nothing wrong with eating the sacrificial meat unless it causes someone to stumble. Anti-Paulists would say that contradicts the Jerusalem council's decree in Acts 15 and Yahshua's words in Rev.2:14 & 20.
The Jerusalem council's decree was that the Gentiles were to abstain from things offered to idols (Acts 15:20). The Greek reads, "to hold back from pollutions of the idols." Acts 15:29 in the KJV reads, "that you abstain from meats offered to idols." The Greek reads, "to abstain from idol sacrifices." Acts 21:25 reads, "keep themselves from things offered to idols." The Greek reads, "to keep from themselves the both idol sacrifices and the blood . . ."
As you can see, there is no reference to eating the meat of those sacrifices. We can infer that, but it doesn't make it clear. The council may be decreeing that they simply abstain from sacrificing to idols.
Keep in mind two important points as you ponder this issue; 1) There is no direct command in Torah from Yahweh to not eat meat sacrificed to idols and 2) The Jerusalem council's decree was never sent to the Corinthians. Acts 15:23 says,
"And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:"
Those three locations are just north of Israel. Corinth is at least 1,000 miles away in Greece across the Aegean Sea. Paul was not told to deliver the decree to any other Gentile areas. Verse 30 shows that Paul obeyed the council and delivered the decree.
Concerning point #1: Some appeal to Ex.34:12-16 for such a command. It reads as follows:
"Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goes, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other mighty one: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous El: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their mighty ones, and do sacrifice unto their mighty ones, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their mighty ones, and make thy sons go a whoring after their mighty ones."
Notice there is no direct command from Yahweh saying not to eat meat sacrificed to an idol. What He forbids is the making of a covenant with non-Israelites which may then lead to idolatry and idolatrous eating. When a covenant is made between two parties they become bound together in a special relationship.
Paul was in total agreement with Ex.34:12-16. He admonished the Corinthians to avoid such bonds in 2 Cor.6:14-18. It reads as follows:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Messiah with Belial? or what part hath he that believes with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of Elohim with idols? for ye are the temple of the living Elohim; as Elohim hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith [Yahweh], and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith [Yahweh] Almighty."
However, when Paul tells the Corinthians that it is permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as they do not cause another to stumble, he is saying that in the context of NOT being in a covenant relationship (unequally yoked) at the time. To simply sit down and eat a meal because you are hungry is totally different than sitting down with an idolater with whom you have covenanted and partaking in his idolatry by eating his sacrifice.
Paul said:
"But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to Elohim: and I would not that you should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Master, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Master's table, and of the table of devils." (1 Cor.10:20-21)
The "fellowship" comes when one places themselves in that special bonded relationship. There is no such fellowship when one simply buys a piece of meat at a meat market, even if it was sacrificed to an idol. Believers can have fellowship with each other through Messiah. We can have no fellowship with unbelievers unless we join with them through some sort of mutual bond such as a covenant, contract, sexual relations, etc.
What about Numbers 25:1-3?
"And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their mighty ones: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their mighty ones. And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel."
Notice what was done as a prelude to eating meat sacrificed to idols; they committed whoredom. In other words, they joined themselves to Moab through sexual relations. They created an intimate bond of fellowship which made their eating idolatrous.
Paul wrote the following in 1 Corinthians 6:16:
"What? know you not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."
A sexual relationship creates a bond of oneness between the two. This is why Yahweh warned Israel in Ex.34:12-16 about making a covenant, especially through marriage, with non-Israelites.
Paul was not condoning eating meat sacrificed to an idol while in such a covenant relationship whether through marriage, fornication, contract, or otherwise.
With those things in mind, how do we harmonize Paul with Rev.2:14 & 20? Theses verses read as follows:
"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication." (14)
"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calls herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols." (20)
The key word in understanding this issue is "stumblingblock" in verse 14. Balak caused Israel to stumble by having them do something they believed was wrong. Israel believed such meat to be "common" or defiled. Jezebel did the same thing by seducing believers to do the same. The issue in Rev.2 is exactly what Paul taught in Romans 14:13-15.
"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Master Yahshua, that there is nothing common of itself: but to him that esteems any thing to be common, to him it is common. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walk thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Messiah died."
Israel esteemed meat sacrificed to idols to be defiled. Yahweh never said it was, but Israel believed it was. They did not have the deeper understanding that Paul and the Corinthians had that an idol was nothing. So for Israel to eat such meat was to them a sin, but to Paul it was nothing.
Conclusion
In conclusion brethren, the Apostle Paul was truly that, an Apostle appointed and sent by Yahshua himself. His writings, when properly exegeted and rightly understood, were and are a blessing to millions of believers. May they continue to be so.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
what a lot of "explanations": he did not mean that, he was talking about that; that is taken out of context, etc , etc, etc, So unless you are a "Bible" student and know all the nuances, and subtilities you cant take the word of the Bible as it is written. So unlike the Qura'an when it says what it means and means what it says and you don't need a degree in it to understand what is written.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
So all "illerates" are denied the "truth" then?
You're wrong again, that's why we go to church and Bible study.
Ephesians 4:12 (KJV
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
We don't trust the Bible as it is filled with many mistakes and contradictions, or "misunderstandings" as you call them. We trust the Book without any of these it and states that salvation does not rely on Jesus (PBUH) who was just a messenger, but on your faith AND good works. and no "messiah"
Muslim view on Messiah/Christ/Word Because he was the "Messiah/Christ" and the "Word"?
Many people believe "Messiah" to be a mystical Biblical term which had been reserved by God from the beginning of time as a direct equivalent of "only begotten Son." For this reason, when they see that Jesus is referred to in the Bible as "The Messiah" they immediately translate this to mean "The Son of God." In order to clear up this misconception, let us first define the true meaning of the word Messiah and then show it's exact usage in the Bible.
The word "Messiah" is the English version of the Hebrew word mashiyach {maw-shee'-akh}. The literal meaning of this word in the Hebrew language is "to anoint." In our present day, it is customary for those who are appointed to high office (ie. the President of the US, Supreme Court justices, etc.) to attend a solemn ritual wherein that person is consecrated into office. During this ritual, certain rights of passage or ascension must be performed, such as repeating a solemn oath and so forth. Once such rituals have been successfully completed, only then is that person considered to have officially received the rights and obligations of this office.
In a similar fashion, in ancient times it was a common practice among the Jews to "anoint" those who were appointed positions of high authority. If we were to read the Bible we would find that every priest and king of ancient Israel was "anointed" by their people as a sign of official consecration to office. Further, we find that it was not at all uncommon for inanimate objects and even pagans to be "anointed." For example:
Solomon:
1 Kings 1:39 "And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon."
David:
1 Samuel 16:13 "Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah."
Jewish priests:
Leviticus 4:3 "If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering."
Cyrus the pagan:
Isaiah 45:1 "Thus saith the LORD to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;"
A pillar:
Genesis 31:13 "I [am] the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, [and] where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred."
The tabernacle:
Leviticus 8:10 "And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that [was] therein, and sanctified them."
A cherub:
Ezekiel 28:14 "Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."
Sick people:
Mark 6:13 "And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed [them]."
Jesus anoints a blind man
John 9:6 "When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,"
When this word was translated into ancient Greek, the words used were "Messias" {mes-see'-as} and "Christos" {khris-tos'} (see John 1:41, 4:25). This is where we get the word "Christ" from, it was originally derived from the Greek word for "anoint." Jesus was indeed "christened," or "anointed," or "baptized," by John the Baptist before the beginning of his ministry as seen for example in Matthew 3:16 among many other verses.
This is not to say that just because the word "Messiah" was applied to others that it was not a specific designation for Jesus. It only goes to show that this title does not imply a position as "Son of God."
For example, all of the prophets of God are "friends of God," however, only prophet Abraham received this title as an official designation for himself (James 2:23). In a similar manner, all of the prophets of God in ancient Israel were all "anointed" prophets, however, as an official designation, this title was reserved exclusively for Jesus. This is indeed confirmed in the noble Qur'an:
"And the angles said 'O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, his name is Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, High honored in this world and the next, of those near stationed to Allah."
The noble Qur'an, Aal-Umran(3):40
In fact, prophet Abraham is also fondly referred to by Muslims as the "Khaleel-ullah" ("Friend of God"), and prophet Moses is referred to as "Kaleem-ullah" ("The one spoken to by God"). However, just because prophet Abraham is the "friend of God," this does not imply that all other prophets (Noah, Moses, etc.) are all "enemies of God."
Similarly, just because Jesus (pbuh) is a "word" from God and a "spirit" from Him does not imply that that he is "part of" God, or that this designation is exclusive to him. For example, in the Qur'an we read:
"So when I (God) have fashioned him (Adam) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall you (Angels, and those in attendance) down in prostration before him."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Hijr(15):29
"Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it "Be!" - and it is"
The noble Qur'an, Al-Nahil(16):40 (please also read chapter 14)
To make such terminology clearer, let us take the example of the term "house of God," or "My house" as seen in the Bible and the Qur'an in 1 Chronicles 9:11, and Al-Bakarah(2):125. If God is not confined to a specific house or location (both Muslims and Christians agree to this), then what is meant by the words "house of God"? Every house on earth belongs to God, however, we do not call bars or brothels "houses of God" but we do call houses of worship "houses of God." The true meaning is that God is showing favor upon this house by associating it with His name. God bestows such titles upon those whom He wishes to bestow His favor upon from among His creation by virtue of the piety and worship which is displayed to God in association with this creation. It was the selfless dedication and piety of Jesus (pbuh) towards his Creator which was rewarded by God by associating Jesus' spirit with His name.
In a similar manner, the reference to Jesus being a "word" from God does not mean that Jesus is "part of" God. For example, in many places in the Bible God refers to His "word." We can see this for example:
"Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah."
Numbers 20:24
Does "my word" here mean "Jesus"? There are numerous other examples.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Father, hear our prayers for the salvation of the world. Grant Mercy to all souls that turned away from you. Open their hearts and minds with your light.
Gather your children from the east and the west, from the north and the south.
Have mercy O God on those who do not know you. Bring them out of darkness into your light. You are our saving God who leads us in our salvation. Protect us from evil.
Bless and praise you O Lord, hear our prayers and answer us. You, our Savior, are the hope of all the ends of the Earth and the distant seas. May your way be known upon Earth; among all nations your salvation.
We put the world in your hands; fill us with your love. Grant us peace through Christ, our Lord. Amen
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
[quote=Tman]We don't trust the Bible.
So, are you suggesting that the Bible does not apply to you because you don't trust it? I am living in a big city and I do not trust the police, does that means I am at liberty to break the laws of the land without getting punished because I do not trust the police? I think not. The laws are there regardless if I trust the police or not, and ofcourse not, I am not precluded from obeying the laws just because I do not trust the police.
The Bible is the word of God regardless if you trust it or not.
The act of the Atonement for our sin is in the shedding of the blood in Jesus Christ's death. Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, in a mortal body. Since God cannot die He needed to take upon Himself a human body to dies for the sins of the world.
By His death He poured out His life and died for our sins we would be reconciled by it. This was done as a Propitiation to the Father almost 2,000 years ago and is still effective today. The Atonement was for man and unto God the Father. Propitiation for sins is always toward God, not toward man. The Father accepted His payment for our sins. It was between God the Father, and the God/man Christ Jesus. We ourselves do not touch the blood, it is applied to our lives by the high priest who is Christ when we believe in faith to receive his Atonement. Eph.1:7; Col. 1:14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." Rev. 1:5: "To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood," This occurred almost 2,000 years ago.
The blood in Jesus body was not the magic. He had to die on a certain day and time to fulfill the plan of the Passover lamb. The blood of Christ refers to his sacrificial death. One can bleed and still not die but the Bible tells us he died for our sins- by crucifixion. If Jesus had been cut and someone were to physically contact his blood, touching it, there would be no transference of his holiness, power or healing. (unlike the Indiana Jones movie in search of the Holy Grail). 1 Cor.15:3: "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," Rom.5:8: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Rom.5:10: "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, Phil 2:8: "And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross." Heb.9:15 "And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death," God the Father accepted his death as his blood was spilled on the altar (the cross). It was completed when he died.
The Bible says there is only one way to Heaven
Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6
Tman, this also applies to you regardless if you trust it or not. If don't trust the police and get caught speeding, I am still going to get that speeding ticket regardless if I trust the police or not.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
What a poor example, (D) must try harder. So if you don't believe what is written in the Hindu Holy Book you will still be held responsible for breaking its laws? Do the maths: Friday sundown to Sunday morning is not three days.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. 27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. 30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
Note: No believing he is the “son of God”; no “I will die on the cross”, no trinity. (1) Follow the commandments. (2) Sell all, if you want to be “perfect” i.e. achieve the highest state on earth, because everyone is “perfect” in Heaven. (3) “Follow me” i.e. follow my teachings as stated above. He, Jesus (PBUH) went on to tell the disciples if they did all that they would get to Heaven, and as a special “reward” they would get to judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel, just ISRAEL, NOT THE WHOLE OF MANKIND. This is what Islam teaches: follow the commandments, seek perfection on earth, follow the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), not Paul.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
Originally Posted By: Tman
What a poor example, (D) must try harder. So if you don't believe what is written in the Hindu Holy Book you will still be held responsible for breaking its laws? Do the maths: Friday sundown to Sunday morning is not three days.
Why would I adhere to what's written in another book when the Bible is God's final authority?
In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” —Revelation 22:18-19
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
The Quran came after the Bible and if it was not the Word of God how come it contains so many accurate statements which have just been discovered in the last few years? The Revelation book you are referring to was written by someone called John, not God, and no one knows who he is or was. We Muslims will stick with the Book we can verify, free from errors or contradictions.
"Verily! Allah does not forgive that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgives (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribes partners to Allah, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin." The Noble Qur'an, Al-Nissa (4):48.
"Whatever of misfortune strikes you, it is what your right hands have earned. And He forgives much." The Noble Qur'an, Al-Shurah (42):30
"And those who, when they do an evil thing or wrong themselves, remember Allah and implore forgiveness for their sins. Who forgives sins save Allah only? And they do not knowingly repeat (the wrong) they did. The reward of such will be forgiveness from their Lord, and Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever, a bountiful reward for workers!" The noble Qur'an, A'al-Umran (3):135-136.
"He is the One that accepts repentance from His Servants and forgives sins: and He knows all that you do." The Noble Qur'an, Al-Shurah (42):25.
"Not equal are the Companions of the Fire and the Companions of the Garden: The companions of the Garden, they are the triumphant. Had We sent down this Qur'an on a mountain verily you would have seen it humble, rent asunder for fear of Allah. Such are the similitudes which We propound to humanity that they may reflect. He is Allah, other than whom there is no other god, He is the 'Knower' of (all things) both the unseen and the seen; He is the 'Gracious' the 'Merciful'. He is Allah, other than whom there is no god, the 'Sovereign' the 'Holy One' the (source of)'Peace,' the 'Guardian of Faith' the 'Overseer,' the 'Majestic,' the 'Irresistible,' the 'Supreme': Glory be to Allah! (highly exalted is He) above the partners they attribute to Him. He is Allah the 'Creator,' the 'Innovator,' the 'Fashioner'. His are the Most Beautiful Names: Whatever is in the heavens and on earth do glorify Him: and He is the 'Mighty' the 'Wise'." The Noble Qur'an, al-Hashir (59):20-24.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 442
Loc: west palm beach
Offline
The Quran came after the Bible and if it was not the Word of God how come it contains so many accurate statements which have just been discovered in the last few years? The Revelation book you are referring to was written by someone called John, not God, and no one knows who he is or was. We Muslims will stick with the Book we can verify, free from errors or contradictions.
Tman, we have been down this road before. I can say the same about the quran, but I am not here to play tit for tat, furthermore I will take the book of revelation over the quran anyday and this is my reason:
The quran was given to the Prophet Mohammad by a Duppy or a spirit who he thought was the Angel Gabriel, not God.
Revelation, the Appostle John was taken up to heaven where he came face to face with the Risen Jesus Christ who is God almighty who showed him and told him what to write, so revelation is from God Himself, no duppy, spirit or fallen angel, but from the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And thus the Bible is God's final Authority.
Scripture can only be understood correctly in the light of Scripture, since it alone is uncorrupted. It is only with the Holy Spirit’s light that Scripture can be comprehended correctly. The Holy Spirit causes those who are the Lord’s to understand Scripture (John 14:16-17, 26). Since the Spirit does this by Scripture, obviously, it is in accord with the principle that Scripture itself is the infallible rule of interpretation of its own truth “it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth” (I John 5:6).
Tman if you want to be true to God in this important matter, follow His instruction, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you” (Proverbs 1:23). If you are yearning for truth in the attitude of Psalm 51:17 “with a broken and a contrite heart”, the Lord God will not despise you. He will reveal to you the basic foundation where the Lord Christ Jesus stood, as did the apostles.
Registered: 01/04/01
Posts: 1257
Loc: London, England
Offline
I can see you are getting desperate and resorting to insults: "The Qur'an was given to the Prophet Mohammad by a Duppy or a spirit who he thought was the Angel Gabriel, not God." FYI: The Angel Gabriel received the Word form God and passed it down to Muhammad (PBUH). If you can retain your calm and a rational mind please explain the science in the Qur'an if it is not from God how did Muhammad (PBUH) come to know these things? Please, no irrevelant quotes, just a plain explanation in your own words that we can all understand.
_________________________
Assalamu alay kum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu (Peace, mercy and blessings be upon you)
