Refutation of Pauline Controversy - Discussed

inhumility

Active Member
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
Points
0
From :Junatoo3
Kindest Regards, Inhumility.
Would it interest you to know I have already refuted Mr. Garaffa's article? In direct conversation with him, no less. To which I am still patiently awaiting a reply. So no, the Pauline Conspiracy is not truth, not in the sense you suggest. It is an opinion, an opinion in which I found many many holes in the logic.
Refutation of Pauline Controversy
If you would be so kind as to carefully look for yourself, Inhumility, perhaps you might learn some truth.

Hi
Junatoo3
Sir
I have gone through your refutation of Pauline Conspiracy and I maintain in most of the part that perhaps you have not even touched the points mentioned by Victor in his article. Please don’t mind; you might have just commented on the article and its contents yet it cannot be termed as refutation proper, unless you demolish the arguments and points made by him, one by one, not in a generalized way but specific for each point on merit. My own simple observation when I study NTBible is that Paul hijacked Christianity. Nevertheless I don’t find any animosity towards him.
1. Paul introduced new concepts and beliefs which Jesus never had declared overtly or covertly.
2. Present Christianity is not based on the concepts of Jesus; rather they have named it after Jesus Christ, while inside it is absolutely a new thing. It is Paulism disguised under the title Christianity; inside it is Paul and Paul and Paul, it has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
3.This has been established by Victor and he has been successful in doing that. Even if he had not written his article, that was a fact known to anybody who reads NTBible deeply with open eyes. Brother Victor’s area of expertise is that he has cracked the outer-shell and opened it for everybody to observe inside. Let Paul be judged in the light of his own words, which has been done by Victor.
4. As I have stated earlier I am not interested in Paul bashing, or if someone starts Victor bashing. You have most of the time discussed that without Paul, Christianity would have not progressed. This is not my concern or my worry or perhaps that of Victor’s. What would have happened to Christianity (or more correctly Paulism) without Paul is not an issue with the article; perhaps it is better if it is kept separately.
5. Victor has established that Paul’s narrations of the vision in different books are different. The witnesses are not consistent. He was blind when he saw the vision. This was not a temporary disability but almost permanent as Paul later had been complaining about them many times afterwards.
6. Paul was called by the disciples in Jerusalem for his weird concepts but he never went there.
7. He or his men at his behest coerced, man-handled, twisted arms of others who did not subscribe to Paul’s views; this would have never been done by Jesus.
8. There is a long list of such things which have been mentioned by Victor but not touched by you in the refutation. So, to me, your refutation has not penetrated deep enough into his arguments; therefore it does not change my opinion. I would request you to first please make out a list of the issues taken on by him and established by him and then every issue should be demolished and refuted separately
9. Unless you do that; the things established by him in his article would remain valid; the imprint and impression of the same would last longer if no done so.
10. While reading Victor’s article, I had been highlighting the points, the arguments or important lines/passages in the article for my own use only; that could be useful for one who intends to do the refutation work. I may e-mail if somebody is interested. The refutation would require a lot of time undoubtedly. Is there some lover of Paul who would embark on this project, reasonably and rationally?
11. Christians who think that without Paul, there would be no Christianity; in my opinion they are not justified in a sense. Victor is still a Christian, a follower of JesusYeshuaIssa, he has neither converted to Judaism nor to Islam, that proves that Christianity would have survived without Paul and his epistles, and then to many it would have been a more truthful or more real entity.
Victor made some good suggestions as to how the refutation work should be done, that have not been attended. Another approach would be to mention, one by one, the points established by Victor and everybody join discussion on that under separate threads.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam
 
From cyberpi Post# 13 dated 09-23-2006 Thread:Refutation of Pauline Controversy.
"I think if Paul hijacked Christianity, the Qur'an would have mentioned him. Right? It doesn't."

I think Quran did not mention Paul’s name yet in a general way GodAllahYHWH has mentioned it with the account of Issa (AS) and his pristine teachings, and that is what is intrinsically important. I quote here some verses from Quran.5:117-121
[5:117] And when Allah will say, 'O Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, 'Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah?' he will answer, 'Holy art THOU, I could never say that which I had no right. If I had said it, Thou wouldst have surely known it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. It is Thou alone Who art the Knower of all hidden things;
005-117.gif
[5:118] 'I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me - Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou, hast been the Watcher over them, and Thou art Witness over all things;
005-118.gif
[5:119] 'If Thou punish them, they are Thy servants; and if Thou forgive them, Thou surely art the Mighty, the Wise. '
005-119.gif
[5:120] Allah will say, 'This is a day when only the truthful shall profit by their truthfulness. For them are Gardens beneath which streams flow; therein shall they abide forever. Allah is well pleased with them, and they are well pleased with Him; that indeed is the supreme achievement.'
005-120.gif
[5:121] To Allah belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth and whatever is in them; and He has power over all things.
005-121.gif

Unquote:
Here Quran has unfolded the phenomenon, it is a history of world religions, their ProphetsMessengers had different teachings, but people ascribing to their name coming after them resorted to believing altogether different concepts beliefs, of course unauthorized.
In essence, this is same what Victor’s article proves.
Incidentally this history was also to be repeated after Muhammad (SAW) as mentioned in Bukhari (four times repeatedly at least). Prophet Muhammad (SAW) told that at the judgement day some people would be lead towards Hell, Muhammad (SAW) would say that they are his followers. Allah would say that you don't know what they did after you died, then Muhammad (SAW) would say to Allah as Prophet Issa had said that ,"And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou, hast been the Watcher over them, and Thou art Witness over all things;"
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam
 
...
I think Quran did not mention Paul’s name yet in a general way GodAllahYHWH has mentioned it with the account of Issa (AS) and his pristine teachings, and that is what is intrinsically important.

Thank you for the invite Inhumility. I will take Paul's teachings back with me, to where I belong, however I feel refreshed in knowing that Paul is never mentioned and hence has no recompense with Islam (he is an afterthought).

I am glad the Qu'ran never spoke badly of Paul either. In fact Paul doesn't exist in the Qu'ran as you have proven.

Therefore there is really no reference point to consider between Christian and Muslim on Paul, using the Bible and Qu'ran as references.

That makes this an exercise in futility (in my opinion).

v/r

Joshua
 
Kindest Regards, Inhumility!

Ah, what a lovely challenge to lay before me!

I have gone through your refutation of Pauline Conspiracy and I maintain in most of the part that perhaps you have not even touched the points mentioned by Victor in his article. Please don’t mind; you might have just commented on the article and its contents yet it cannot be termed as refutation proper, unless you demolish the arguments and points made by him, one by one, not in a generalized way but specific for each point on merit. My own simple observation when I study NTBible is that Paul hijacked Christianity. Nevertheless I don’t find any animosity towards him.
I believe I addressed this specifically...Victor is consumed with details ("the devil is in the details...") where I am more concerned with an overall view. For example, Victor places a focus on "Pauline Christians" attacking "Jerusalem Christians" physically, suggesting that these followers of Paul are responsible for the demise of the Jerusalem church by force. This completely ignores the reality of the influence and impact of the Roman government through its armies had on physically annihilating both sets of Christians (technically, in my view, the "whole" set of Christians). To demolish all of Victor's points is not necessary, nor is it truthful. Victor has collected a great number of "facts." He chooses to interpret those facts in a way that suits his personal agenda. I choose to interpret those facts in a way that suits my agenda. We are looking at the same things...so they cannot be demolished. We are coming to different conclusions based on those same things. The only reason to demolish would be to destroy the truth, and neither of us is interested in doing that. Point by point is a waste of my time if the view is incorrect. Incorrect that is, as to how I interpret these same facts. You may conclude as you wish...certainly G-d has given you that ability, praise G-d for it! I have concluded differently, and I praise G-d for it! You wish to support your faith path, and I wish to support mine.

1. Paul introduced new concepts and beliefs which Jesus never had declared overtly or covertly.
I think this is a misunderstanding. Paul translated Jesus' concepts into practical reality for the Pagan masses.

2. Present Christianity is not based on the concepts of Jesus; rather they have named it after Jesus Christ, while inside it is absolutely a new thing. It is Paulism disguised under the title Christianity; inside it is Paul and Paul and Paul, it has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
See my previous answer. Not only did Paul translate Jesus' concepts into practical reality for the Pagan masses, Paul opened the way bypassing the requirement to first be Jewish. The concepts are inherently similar, enough to be called the same. The concepts are merely applied into a different cultural paradigm. Paul was able to do that because of his cosmopolitan worldview and his ability to be a cultural chameleon. In other words, Paul moved Jesus' concepts from a Jewish worldview to a cosmopolitan worldview. Victor takes exception to this, where I praise G-d for it. Without it, I am lost to Christianity. I am lost to Christianity because I am not first a Jew. Victor too, would be lost to Christianity for the very same reason, unless he first is a Jew.

3. This has been established by Victor and he has been successful in doing that. Even if he had not written his article, that was a fact known to anybody who reads NTBible deeply with open eyes. Brother Victor’s area of expertise is that he has cracked the outer-shell and opened it for everybody to observe inside. Let Paul be judged in the light of his own words, which has been done by Victor.
Yet we come again to interpretation. "Anybody who reads the NTBible deeply with open eyes" will see that Paul is interpreting Jesus' message for a non-Jewish crowd. The message is not lost. It is translated into another culture and worldview, one outside of Judaism.

4. As I have stated earlier I am not interested in Paul bashing, or if someone starts Victor bashing. You have most of the time discussed that without Paul, Christianity would have not progressed. This is not my concern or my worry or perhaps that of Victor’s. What would have happened to Christianity (or more correctly Paulism) without Paul is not an issue with the article; perhaps it is better if it is kept separately.
I have not Paul bashed, or Victor bashed, nor have I intentionally bashed anyone on this subject. Paul is being bashed, but not by me. "Without Paul, Christianity would have not progressed." While this may not be your concern as a Muslim, as a Christian it is a great concern of mine. And it is very relevent to this discussion. Historically, Judaism gots it's ass kicked by the Romans in the first and very early in the second centuries AD. To ignore that a "Jewish Christianity" would have been annihilated is to ignore historical fact, and to ignore the Hand of G-d. So, if we must discuss facts surrounding these things, then let us discuss ALL of those facts, and not just the ones that allow us to interpret things the way we want. Let us see the WHOLE truth.

5. Victor has established that Paul’s narrations of the vision in different books are different. The witnesses are not consistent. He was blind when he saw the vision. This was not a temporary disability but almost permanent as Paul later had been complaining about them many times afterwards.
So what? I am aware of the inconsistencies of the reports of Paul's vision. Have you ever told a story, and years later told the same story, and years later told the same story? And was it always told exactly the same, every time? Did you tell the story the same way to your mother, to your father, to your child, to your friend, to your imam? If you were from a tribal culture that valued oral history, I might be inclined to think that maybe yes you did tell the story the same every time. But since you are not, and I am not, and Paul was not, I am inclined to think that a story might take certain turns over the course of years of telling. The important part stays the same.

6. Paul was called by the disciples in Jerusalem for his weird concepts but he never went there.
So says Victor, with no proof. I say different, with no better proof. Neither of us were there. Yet, according to the Bible and tradition, Paul argued with Peter and James in Jerusalem.

7. He or his men at his behest coerced, man-handled, twisted arms of others who did not subscribe to Paul’s views; this would have never been done by Jesus.
I see a certain irony here...Jesus did not call his followers to war, Paul did not call his followers to war...Mohammed on the other hand...
I saw where Victor implied this, but frankly I have no idea where he gets it from. I do not see how this can be gathered from the scriptures. It is not there.

8. There is a long list of such things which have been mentioned by Victor but not touched by you in the refutation. So, to me, your refutation has not penetrated deep enough into his arguments; therefore it does not change my opinion. I would request you to first please make out a list of the issues taken on by him and established by him and then every issue should be demolished and refuted separately
I will make the same offer to you that I did to Victor...will you finance my endeavor? I see over 400 hours of work, with no academic credit. So, what incentive do I have? A nice monetary incentive along with academic credit would go far in convincing me to undertake this fool's errand. Otherwise, why should I?

9. Unless you do that; the things established by him in his article would remain valid; the imprint and impression of the same would last longer if no done so.
Nice try. The things established by Victor will appeal to those whom they will, and they will not appeal to those who think differently. What I demolish and refute will have no bearing on the outcome. In addition, I already mentioned earlier, much of what Victor points to as proof is valid...it is his imterpretation of that valid proof that I disagree with.

10. While reading Victor’s article, I had been highlighting the points, the arguments or important lines/passages in the article for my own use only; that could be useful for one who intends to do the refutation work. I may e-mail if somebody is interested. The refutation would require a lot of time undoubtedly. Is there some lover of Paul who would embark on this project, reasonably and rationally?
I already have reasonably and rationally refuted Victor's article. I see Victor has not responded yet, and it has been some months now. I do question the use of "lover of Paul" though...it is strange. Almost as if you wish to imply that one cannot love Jesus and Paul at the same time? If I were Jewish, perhaps I could love Jesus without Paul. But wait, that's not very likely! Instead, thank G-d, I love Jesus through Paul. You find this incredible...that is your choice, not mine. You will hear the interpretation that appeals to you, I will hear the interpretation that appeals to me. I will look at ALL of the truth, not just the truth that supports what I want to believe.

11. Christians who think that without Paul, there would be no Christianity; in my opinion they are not justified in a sense. Victor is still a Christian, a follower of JesusYeshuaIssa, he has neither converted to Judaism nor to Islam, that proves that Christianity would have survived without Paul and his epistles, and then to many it would have been a more truthful or more real entity.
As a Muslim, I would expect you to think Christianity would still exist without Paul and that I am not justified in my position...that view supports Islam and undermines Christianity. Whereas my view is without concern for Islam. My view is concerned with historical fact first, and Christianity second. Victor's view seems to me concerned first with Judaism and second with what history supports his view while disregarding history that doesn't support his view. Further, Victor's Christianity now has no bearing on the historical reality of Palestine in the first and early in the second centuries. Victor is not facing a Roman army, or with being fed alive to a lion. So Victor's adherence to a diluted Christianity is in reality proof of nothing.

Victor made some good suggestions as to how the refutation work should be done, that have not been attended. Another approach would be to mention, one by one, the points established by Victor and everybody join discussion on that under separate threads.
What others here may wish to do is upon them. There have been others start threads about one or two points and they have been soundly refuted with the author never returning to present a rebuttal, which tells me they were not as understanding in the subject as they first pretended. On the other hand, I believe Victor is as studied on this subject as a person can be. I enjoyed my discussion with him. I simply disagree with his assessment of the facts.

Shalom.

 
Back
Top