Paul/Saul, the Controversial

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

as requested:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ne_conspiracy/

an excerpt:

The general opinion of theologians and interpreters is that the author of this letter is unknown. The fact that many may assume it was written by James, the Apostle and Jesus' brother, is pure conjecture. Of the three James' who have been considered as authors, the most generally accepted was, as noted, James the Lord's brother.

The author, however, remains anonymous as do the readers to whom the letter was sent. There is no formal dedication, nor is it addressed to anyone other than, "...the twelve tribes in the dispersion." (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 12: Page 3)

James, in the text we have today, is the work of a Christian author, whose training was Hellenistic but whose religious background was Hebrew. (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 12: Page 5)

One thing is certain, that in every respect, this letter denounces that which Paul was teaching about the Law and about faith. It is extraordinary that we know from Paul's letters that circumcision is an argument against which he fought constantly. His stand was that Gentile believers should not be forced to this custom in order to join the 'church.'

Yet in Acts, after the meeting in which Timothy was circumcised, no such demand was made of the Gentiles. Paul goes on about it constantly, and yet Luke advises us that only four requirements were necessary for the Gentiles to enter the church with the Jews.

"But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." (Acts 21: 25; RSV)

We know from the letters we have already covered that Paul immediately found fault with this reasoning too, and took the elders of Jerusalem, including the Apostles, to task. This also explains his instruction concerning eating meat offered to idols, which was diametrically opposed to the Apostles' edict.

His creation of a Communion meal, in which the blood of Jesus became a principal part, was also in violation of the agreement. Obviously he did these things to oppose the Jerusalem Church and the Apostles.

One must understand that Paul did not want these issues settled. Without them he had nothing to instigate his captive congregations against the mother church or the Apostles. If, as fact shows us, the disciples had already given in to compromise, it was to Paul's advantage to make it appear as though they had not.

Of course, the reports that came back to the Jerusalem Church were so confounding that the disciples would not believe that Paul had wandered so far from proper conduct and instruction.

"You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed; they are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done?" (Acts 21:20-22; RSV)

Paul bowed to the decision of the Elders and went through the ritual purification. But they need not have worried, Paul was not about to keep any vow, for it seems that nothing was sacred to this man. When his missionary journeys continued, he immediately pressed the congregations to follow 'his gospel' as we have already seen.

The converted Jews cannot believe the reports that Paul has taught Jewish converts to forsake the Law. To prove that these accusations are lies, he agrees to show publicly that there is nothing to what his enemies have been saying about him. (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 12: Page 7)

Paul lied to the Apostles and the Elders without blinking an eye. We know what he was doing through his own written word. Until the time came that his organization was strong enough, he dared not admit the truth. And after having taken the vows necessary in the, Rite of Cleansing, no small matter to the Jews, and at a distance from the authorities in Jerusalem, he continued his work of undermining the true faith.

The concession of the Apostles and the elders of the Jerusalem Church is hard to believe, but for the Gentiles, they would need only follow the four conditions asked of them. With these items alone, "...Gentiles might be regarded as inheritors of salvation." (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 12: Page 7)

Where is Paul's continuing struggle with the Jerusalem Church? It would seem that the "problems" he is facing are being contrived by Paul himself, for the church had already conceded to his wishes. No commitment to the Law, no circumcision, no observance of tradition for any of the Gentile converts. Is Paul now insisting that this must also be true for the Jews? More struggle, more contention, because he cannot exist without it. And if none is forthcoming, he will invent it if only to continue his attack on the Apostles.

Paul's reasoning and Paul's mentality are understood by no one. And far be it for this student to pass judgment, but his intentions were understood by no one but Paul, including the church to whom he preached. To the simple man, the simple mind, he was taken literally and that brought nothing but confusion to them and to the church today.


***************

the essay is long, well thought out and well presented, in my view.

metta,

~v

[elijah115]

This is the type of article aimed at people who haven't read the bible, and who are vulnerable to divisive arguments. After I have had my lunch, I'll provide a short reply and leave the discussion at that because I'm not here to argue.

[satay]

You are allowed to argue here...

[Vajradhara]

Namaste elijah,

thank you for the post.

This is the type of article aimed at people who haven't read the bible, and who are vulnerable to divisive arguments. After I have had my lunch, I'll provide a short reply and leave the discussion at that because I'm not here to argue.

prior to responding to this excerpt, please read the full essay and, should you be able to provide a refutation of the same schoarly sort, i will be happy to host on the Comparative Religion website, as it states.

thus far, we've had that essay hosted for 4 years now, and there hasn't been one refutation of it that even comes close to the standard of the essay.

however, this is more of a polemic against Paulinity than Christianity, for what it is worth.

metta,

~v

[Singhi Kaya]

Namaste Vaj,

Not only is the article very good but the whole site is fantastic. Thanks for the good job you guys are doing.

Regards
S

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Vaj,

Not only is the article very good but the whole site is fantastic. Thanks for the good job you guys are doing.

Regards
S

Namaste Singhi Kaya,

thank you for the post and the kind words.

interestingly enough, our site is frequently referenced by universities in the U.K. as the "goal" of the site is to be the largest Interfaith resource in Britian


we don't have a lot of Sanatana Dharma posters yet, though we've recently had some which have joined and have added to the community as a whole.

metta,

~v

[nirotu]

Dear Vajradhara:

My view is that you have got it all wrong, perhaps, by reading wrong material. As suggested, I spent sometime going through the article (http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ne_conspiracy/). I do believe that these people do not have any firm conviction but are willing to compromise for the sake of pleasing masses.

The author starts on a wrong foot right from the beginning. For example in his very first paragraph:

“….Although some dislike the apparent cultural inflections in the Epistles, without the theology of Saul of Tarsus there is no Christian Doctrine.”

First of all, the entire Bible is written by the inspiration of God. “ All scripture is given by inspiration of God,….” (2Tim 3:16). Although, Paul and men like Paul penned it, the minds of these people were fully inspired by the Holy Spirit. God chose Paul to do these. If it were not Paul then there would be someone else to do the same. Since it is God inspired, the human authorship is of little consequence, and therefore, it is not the messenger that one should go after but the truth in the message itself.

Look at Paul himself! He not only taught the Gospel but also suffered for it. After Paul’s conversion, he was as godly as they come; yet he had problems galore. “To you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Philippians 1:29). His words were not flippant but honest as his later life demonstrates. His statement is daily lived out by believers around the world who experience hardship and persecution for no greater crime than living openly for the name of Jesus. (ODB)

Paul’s passionate plea for the truth can be seen from his cry to the people of Galatia (The book of Galatians). Rather than allowing himself to be shaped by the mood of the mob, Paul declares his conviction to serve the living God and preach His message. Paul pours his heart out to these apostates, new believers and, more importantly, Jewish converts who became perverted by mixing “salvation through grace” with “salvation through work”. Read it if you have a chance!

Many who doubt Paul’s motives should look closely the history when the conversion of Paul takes place. Reader must examine the spiritual condition of Saul of Tarsus before conversion. Notice the religious zeal he had: He was Jew who sought Yahweh with such diligence that he participated in the persecution and murder of Yahweh’s enemies (Acts 22:20). The remarkable thing is that his encounter with God on way to Damascus resulted in changing Paul from being the inquisitor to the zealous servant of Jesus Christ, for whom he suffered and bore all hardships. Thereafter, he renounced all the opportunities that Judaism extended to him, and at last gave his life for his Divine Lord and Master whom he served so faithfully. It all began at the moment of conversion when he becomes completely a changed person. One wonders how can this happen to a man who had made his life’s passion to kill Christians. There is no doubt in my mind that it is the work of Jesus Christ to have convicted him to carry the mission forward.

The author of the website in question (The Pauline conspiracy)has done little or no justice by quoting scripture without proper context. Looking from that angle, many times God’s teaching may not make sense, but it’s always senseless to think we know better.


Blessings,

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nirotu,

thank you for the post.

Dear Vajradhara:

My view is that you have got it all wrong, perhaps, by reading wrong material.

the author of the article cites the Bible as his source. perhaps it is your contention that his copy or transliteration of the Bible is not accurate. nevertheless, as it is clearly stated, that is the source of the article.

As suggested, I spent sometime going through the article (http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ne_conspiracy/). I do believe that these people do not have any firm conviction but are willing to compromise for the sake of pleasing masses.

if that is your impression of the article then i would suggest that you read it again when you have some time that you can spend in consideration of the points presented.

it is clear that the author is a very devout Christian and often participates in discussion of that very subject. what the author is not, however, is a Paulinist.

The author starts on a wrong foot right from the beginning. For example in his very first paragraph:

that is acutally the site owners introduction to the article. you did read the ariticle, didn't you? did you read the rest of the introduction to the essay? the bit where we state: "However, should anyone take it upon themselves to ever write-up a proper defence, addressing all objections in detail, then I would be very happy to post it up here in the general articles section of comparative-religion.com, to serve as a balanced argument."

First of all, the entire Bible is written by the inspiration of God. “ All scripture is given by inspiration of God,….” (2Tim 3:16). Although, Paul and men like Paul penned it, the minds of these people were fully inspired by the Holy Spirit.

that is, as you well know, a matter of faith.

God chose Paul to do these.

accorinding to Paul. yet Paul doesn't seem to be all that consistent on the details of his election to the Nazzarine. do you know who the only being in the Bible that is described as a Nazarite? Jesus. Paul gives himself the same status as Jesus. whilst i find that interesting, it isn't something that has much theological implication in my tradition. i cannot say the same for yours.

If it were not Paul then there would be someone else to do the same. Since it is God inspired, the human authorship is of little consequence, and therefore, it is not the messenger that one should go after but the truth in the message itself.

if the messanger cannot be trusted why would his message be?

Look at Paul himself! He not only taught the Gospel but also suffered for it.

due to his own choice. read the essay.

After Paul’s conversion, he was as godly as they come; yet he had problems galore. “To you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Philippians 1:29). His words were not flippant but honest as his later life demonstrates. His statement is daily lived out by believers around the world who experience hardship and persecution for no greater crime than living openly for the name of Jesus. (ODB)

i, too, live the life explained by the Buddha, namely, that there will be beings that drive us from our homes, our temples and our countries because we practice the Truth of Awakening.

that, however, has absolutely no bearing on the effacy of the teachings.

Paul’s passionate plea for the truth can be seen from his cry to the people of Galatia (The book of Galatians). Rather than allowing himself to be shaped by the mood of the mob, Paul declares his conviction to serve the living God and preach His message. Paul pours his heart out to these apostates, new believers and, more importantly, Jewish converts who became perverted by mixing “salvation through grace” with “salvation through work”. Read it if you have a chance!

here's our chapter on Galatians, excerpt:

Paul declared that his gospel was independent from men, free of dependence on all authority figures, institutions, and laws that interfere with "the direct communion between the individual and his God." (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 429)

Unfortunately this is not a true statement, for Paul's concept of, "...direct access of the individual to his God," was dependent on several strict regulations which he had instituted. One had to be a constituent of the Pauline Christian community. Without that membership you were excluded from this offer. One had to be part of the 'body of Christ', an invention of Paul's theology, which included a total acceptance of his gospel.

One had to conform to Paul's 'dress code', i.e., clothing, personal appearance, and proper posture and attire for prayer. If any of these standards were not met, Paul's solution was very simple. You could leave and be part of the heathen world where Satan ruled, bereft of salvation! In other words, excommunication.

"If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God." (I Corinthians 11: 16; RSV)

Aside from the 'small print,' in Paul's 'free gift of salvation,' it was also his declaration of freedom from every earthly institution that God had declared for mankind. It was a repudiation of all that he had learned, "...at the feet of Gamaliel..." (Acts 22:3; RSV) and every teaching that Jesus had ever given us concerning the Law and its Source. It was Paul's statement of freedom from any obligation he might have toward the disciples, the Jerusalem Church, or any other human being.

<....>

And with this break from all things religious, Paul asserts his independence from the Jerusalem Church and the Apostles. From the opening statement of this letter Paul lets us know that he had broken away from everything decent that had managed to restrain him up to this point. Evidently he was grown strong enough to sustain his own ministry, no longer dependent upon the good will or approval of Jesus' disciples.

In attempting to justify Paul's stand of independence, theologians make a statement that hits the nail they are attempting to avoid, right on the head. What they accuse the Judiazers of trying to discredit Paul with, turns out to be the truth. And if the truth were known, the Judaizers were none other than Jesus' disciples and the elders of the Jerusalem Church.

And for proof, at a later date, Paul is summoned to Jerusalem by the Disciples to answer these exact charges. The accusations have been delivered through those empowered by the elders of the Jerusalem Church. They, at least, have the decency to face the accused and give him the chance to deny the charges, or to make amends. As we have seen, this sort of decency was not part of Paul's character. The charges were that:

(1) He used the title of apostle, but was not one of the original apostles. (2) He had distorted the gospel which the elders of the mother Church, and the Disciples, were preaching. (3) That he preached the abandonment of the Law of Moses and in doing so, was contradicting the teachings of Jesus. (4) They intimated that his, faith without works, was his way of pleasing all men by promising them a cheap admission to God's kingdom. (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 430)

Many who doubt Paul’s motives should look closely the history when the conversion of Paul takes place.

that is the point of the essay.

Reader must examine the spiritual condition of Saul of Tarsus before conversion. Notice the religious zeal he had: He was Jew who sought Yahweh with such diligence that he participated in the persecution and murder of Yahweh’s enemies (Acts 22:20). The remarkable thing is that his encounter with God on way to Damascus resulted in changing Paul from being the inquisitor to the zealous servant of Jesus Christ, for whom he suffered and bore all hardships.

Paul recounts three, seperate and disparate, tales of his so-called "comission" and they do not agree with each other. we cannot blame Luke for this as he was simply repeating what Saul/Paul told him.

"Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do. The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." (Acts 9:3-19; RSV)

Blinded by the light that he alone can see, Paul is sent to meet, Ananias. This disciple is to tell him of his mission and to heal Paul of his affliction.
These are purported to be Paul's words as spoken to Luke. Paul offers witnesses, not by name, but by inference; "the men who were traveling with him." The men are not named, we do not know who they might have been. They see nothing, but hear the voice

Even in Jesus' baptism there are witnesses, John the Baptist and his disciples, which group included Andrew. There were also three 'named' witnesses to the transfiguration. Throughout the history of the Bible, witnesses are provided who are named, and with whom we are familiar in the course of these events. Even Aaron is made part and party to the mission of Moses, spoken to by God and given the very words of God, (Exodus 4:15-16; RSV) as Moses received them in his vision of the burning bush. (Exodus 4:27-28)

Later still, when Paul addresses King Agrippa, the witnesses hear nothing, they see nothing. and the vision becomes Paul's alone.

"At midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining round me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language..." (Acts 26:13-14; RSV)

Hebrew, or Aramaic? It is irrelevant except to note that not only has this addition been made to the vision, but now the voice tells Paul what his task is to be. Ananias is forgotten, and nowhere does Paul state that he was blinded. Added also is the fact that this time, Paul claims that he sees the speaker.

In the other renditions Paul gives of his vision, he is told to go into the city and there he will, "... be told all that is appointed for you to do." (Acts 22:10-11; RSV)

It is of importance to note once more, in the previous version (Acts 26:16-18; RSV) of Paul's testimony there is no mention of his blindness, or of Ananias. In the end, we are to observe by his own words that Paul's recovery from blindness did not involve a perfect 'healing'. His own words testify to the fact that his sight-impairment was permanent and so he complained of it throughout his travels. At the last, he claims that his 'thorn in the side, is of Satan. It would also appear that there was some matter of his being disfigured, unsightly to behold.

So the vision changes, subtly, but enough so that at the end Paul becomes the main character. He sees the great light enveloping himself and those around him, he hears the voice, and through it, he believes that he has been given a calling to minister to the Gentiles. Luke openly declares that Paul began at once to "... declare to those at Damascus, then at Jerusalem and throughout all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles..." (Acts 19:20)

Thereafter, he renounced all the opportunities that Judaism extended to him, and at last gave his life for his Divine Lord and Master whom he served so faithfully. It all began at the moment of conversion when he becomes completely a changed person. One wonders how can this happen to a man who had made his life’s passion to kill Christians. There is no doubt in my mind that it is the work of Jesus Christ to have convicted him to carry the mission forward.

or Satan wishing to undercut and corrupt the religion of Jesus, provided that one believes in such things.

The author of the website in question (The Pauline conspiracy)has done little or no justice by quoting scripture without proper context. Looking from that angle, many times God’s teaching may not make sense, but it’s always senseless to think we know better.


Blessings,

not only does the author quote and cite all the relevant verses, he does it from two different Biblical sources, the Peaks Commentary on the Bible and the Interpeters Bible.

in any event, the offer still stands. if you can provide a scholarly defense and address the issues raised, we will be happy to host your rebuttal so as to present a more balanced argument.

at this point in time, not a single Christian has managed to do so. perhaps you can be the first in this regard.

nevertheless, the objections you raise are valid objections and are addressed within the body of the essay.

metta,

~v

[nirotu]

Thank you, Vajradhara. I appreciate your comments. I will respond soon as I have to run.

Thank again,

Blessings,

[Vajradhara]

Namaste nirotu,

no worries take your time and reply when you can.

metta,

~v