Board index ‹ Paul the Apostle

[Screening]

Most modern Christian thought and belief comes from Paul, a man who never met Jesus and who was not particularly close with the Apostles who did personally know Jesus. What's more, Paul and the Apostles often disagreed (Galatians 2:11-14). Paul's letters do not mention many of Jesus' most common teachings, including the Kingdom of God teaching.

And yet when you discuss matters of morality with Christians they will almost always point to Pauline teachings (including some epistles that no one believes Paul actually wrote). It seems strange to me that this man who was not an Apostle, who disagreed with James, brother of Jesus, and who in fact preached AGAINST Christ's teachings (Paul, attempting to win Gentile converts, insisted circumcision was no longer needed, but Christ had said that not one letter of the law was changed) is the person who worshippers of Christ will turn to in order to make their points.

Are modern Christians actually Paulists and not Christians?

[jimwalton]

We worship Jesus. We respect and trust Paul, but we don't worship him.

> Paul and the Apostles often disagreed (Galatians 2:11-14)

They don't OFTEN disagree. We are told about one disagreement; you found it.

> Paul's letters do not mention many of Jesus' most common teachings, including the Kingdom of God teaching.

Paul was emphasizing the effects of the death and resurrection of Jesus, something that was unknown until the last 40 days of Jesus on Earth. He doesn't mention Jesus's teachings because they were already circulating in the churches. Paul helped us understand the cross and the empty tomb.

> when you discuss matters of morality with Christians they will almost always point to Pauline teachings

It's because Jesus focused His teaching on the kingdom of God and Paul focused his teaching on the implications of the death and resurrection of Christ. The two emphases are soul-mates.

> who in fact preached AGAINST Christ's teachings

He didn't in fact preaching anything against Christ's teachings, but we've have to deal with specifics rather than generalities.

> Paul, attempting to win Gentile converts, insisted circumcision was no longer needed, but Christ had said that not one letter of the law was changed

Paul's teaching about circumcision is not against Christ. Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the Law, but rather to fulfill it. Paul taught that one of those fulfillments is that circumcision was no longer the sign of the covenant, but instead was Jesus's blood. It was still OK to be circumcised; that didn't go away (Acts 16.3), but it had been fulfilled. Now circumcision of the heart was what brought relationship with God (Rom. 2.29).

> Are modern Christians actually Paulists and not Christians?

No, not at all. The two (Jesus and Paul) are in perfect harmony.

[Screening]

That is Paul's explanation of why he was advocating for things that went against Christ's teachings, and why he took a Jewish sect and removed Mosaic law from it. But you're still using Paul's teachings and understandings as your proof, which is begging the question.

[jimwalton]

Of course I'm using Paul's teachings to show what Paul was teaching. I don't see that as "begging the question." "Begging the question is: "The arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) premise, by restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a circle. The actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent, and so the argument is said to beg the question. ... One common form is to leave out a possibly false key premise to create the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the conclusion."

I have not done this. Since you are asserting that Paul is teaching against Christ's teaching, then I need to reference Paul's teaching to show you are incorrect. Since you say Paul and the apostles disagreed, and you reference Paul's teaching (as you did, viz. Gal. 2.11-14), then I need to reference Paul's writing to show how that opinion is false. When you claim that Paul said circumcision was no longer needed, I need to reference Paul's writings to show you Paul's view on circumcision. And then you accuse me of a logical fallacy? You expect me to show you what Paul actually taught without referencing Paul?

> why he took a Jewish sect and removed Mosaic law from it

You are ignoring Romans 3.31: "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” Paul doesn't remove the Mosaic Law. Instead, he shows that the Law is only workable by faith in Christ. Paul, in Galatians, asserts that the Law was given as a temporary tutor (1) to show people that none were righteous and (2) to lead people to Jesus. While it was a temporary tutor, it was still an eternal dictum. Paul teaches that all the rules in the entire law are included in the law of love (Rom. 13.9-10; Gal. 5.14—the Shema, as Jesus taught [Mt. 22.37-40]). (By the way, I can't show you this without referencing Paul's writing.) He doesn't remove the Mosaic law. Rather, he says that Christians fulfill the law of sacrifice by self-sacrifice (Rom. 12.1). Since their entire lives are consecrated to God, they do not even need any dietary rules or commands about special festivals with ritual washing, but love covers all these.

[Screening]

But why are only some parts of the law covered by love and others not? Is Numbers 5: 11-31 still in effect? Should we be putting people to death for sleeping with their daughter-in-law? Should we be putting people to death for cursing their fathers and mothers?

Paul picks and chooses which bits of Mosaic law to abandon because he is trying to entice Gentiles, who did not want to cut off their foreskins or stop eating pigs.

[jimwalton]

> But why are only some parts of the law covered by love and others not?

They're not. They're all covered by love.

> Is Numbers 5: 11-31 still in effect?

It seems you greatly misunderstand Numbers 5 if you are pointing to this as an example. The text is about a woman who is accused of hooking up, and whose husband is upset, obviously, and wants her to come clean on it. First, he is to take an offering to God as a way to ask the Lord’s participation and guidance in the proceedings. Then the wife is to drink some water from the tabernacle mixed with some dust from the tabernacle floor, both of which would be symbols of their relationship with God and their (supposed and assumed) commitment to honor him. By drinking the water, she would in effect be agreeing (like a vow to God) to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Then when the priest asks her if the accusation against her is true or not, she's bound to her word and bound to tell the truth, with penalty for perjury. That's the point anyway. And then if it is shown that she was faithful and her husband was wrongly suspicious, then God will bless her, and if it is shown that she was a naughty girl and did the wild thing (or if she lies about it to cover it up), that God would punish her for that breach of covenant, both with him and with her husband.

What's so unloving about determining the truth of what happened, and about vindicating the victim in a case of a false accusation but judging them in a case of wrongdoing?

You asked if it's still in effect. Of course not. It has to do with the context of theocracy. Civil law (the capital crimes) was intended for Israel as a theocratic state. When Israel/Judah fell (586 BC), the civil law became defunct with it. The civil law was not intended to be carried out by every government in history. It is no longer something secular governments are responsible to carry out. It is no longer something the Church is supposed to carry out. It is not a law or rule for us as Christians. It would be like saying, should America fall one day, would we or any other future person still live by our constitution and Bill of Rights? Of course not. That's for us. But aren't there good, noble, and moral ideas in it? Sure there are, but such things are defunct when the nation falls. We might still recognize the morality of certain elements (we're all in favor of investigating the evidence, vindicating the innocent and convicting the guilty), but we would no longer live under that agreement.

> Should we be putting people to death for sleeping with their daughter-in-law? Should we be putting people to death for cursing their fathers and mothers?

Of course not. See above paragraph.

> Paul picks and chooses which bits of Mosaic law to abandon because he is trying to entice Gentiles

You'd have to prove this case because I think you're totally wrong. Paul deals with the principle behind these questions in Romans 2. I don't think he has at all done what you are accusing him ofl. So let's see your backing for this claim.

But if you use Paul to prove Paul, are you guilty of begging the question, as you accused me?