The Problem with Paul – Part 4

16 Responses to “The Problem with Paul – Part 4”

1. Roland Bouchard on February 3rd, 2009 4:30 pm
   

   The problem of Paul… can readily be seen in his ancestry.

   Saul of Tarsus aka the Apostle and eventual Saint Paul is the namesake of the first (anointed) king of the Jews. He is of the tribe (clan and/or family) of Benjamin.

   King Saul was rebuked by the Lord and the Lord ordered the prophet Samuel to ‘anoint’ David (of the tribe of Judah) in Saul’s stead.

   King Saul, dishonored and shamed, ‘fell upon his own sword’, -thus bringing everlasting dishonor and shame to his tribe and progeny.

   David was succeeded by his son, Solomon.

   Solomon was succeeded by his son, Rehoboam.

   Ten tribes (of Jews) revolted from Rehoboam and, David and Solomon’s theocratic form of governance and established a ’secular’ government with Jeroboam as it’s king in its stead.

   That schism continued down through the centuries… into the days of Herod, an Idumean and convert Jew, -supported by the Romans.

   Enter the ‘descendant of David’ and Jewish ‘messiah’ (’anointed’ one, -in the tradition of the ancient theocracy of David) into Jerusalem, riding on an ass and ushering an armed insurrection to overthrow Herod’s secular government. His name was Judas the Galilean.

   Young Saul of Tarsus, a flunk-out Pharisaic student and Temple thug, possessed by ancient jealousy, hatred and resentment toward the ‘descendants of David’ (for perfectly understandable ‘reasons’), became the chief persecutor of the ‘descendants of David’ and his followers. (There were no ‘Christians’ at that time… the ‘translation’ from the Hebrew’s ‘messiah’ into the Greek “Kristos” (Christ) had yet to occur, -indeed, not until, at least, ten years after the crucifixion of Judas the Galilean).

   Kristos or Christ has no etymological basis or foundation in the Greek language or custom. The ‘translation’ or conversion from the Hebrew ‘messiah’ into the Greek was created and instituted for no useful purpose other than to deflect or divert our (latter-day) people’s attention away from the history of the ‘messiah’ as well as young Saul’s participation in the capture and arrest in the (pleasure) Garden of Gethsemane (under temptingly salacious circumstances -see Mk. 14:51-52) and his (Judas’) crucifixion.

   All that was written concerning “Jesus Christ”, initiated by Mark and Luke (neither of whom were ‘disciples’ or eye-witnesses to the events they so articulately penned) were further re-written, published (privately) and canonized a hundred to two hundred years after the Jewish government was utterly destroyed (70 c.e.), the wealthy and educated were scattered abroad and no man could protest.

   In the meantime, Jesus [Barabbas] was and is anathema.
2. A Watchman on February 6th, 2009 3:05 am
   

   Roland Bouchard,

   There is NO Record of Judas the Galilean riding into Jerusalem on a donkey.

   You lost me when you decided to embellish your story with a Lie.

   The prophet Zechariah prophesies that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem not as a great conqueror of the nations, but as a peaceful, non-violent ruler; symbolic of this is the fact that he rides on a donkey, not on a war horse or in a chariot: “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zech 9:9).

   That does not describe Judas the Galilean at all.

   Judas of Galilee led a violent resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around AD 6. The revolt was crushed brutally by the Romans.

   The idea that Judas the Galilean was The Messiah is strange indeed.

   Acts 5
   36″For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
   37″After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered.
   38″So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown;
   39but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”

   You also seem to mix up Judas the Galileen and Judas Iscariot as being one and the same person by saying that Judas was crucified after the incident in the Garden Gethsemane.

   Jesus (YAHU’SHUA) and Barabbas were not the same person.

   You remind me of the devil when you hiss “the (pleasure) Garden of Gethsemane (under temptingly salacious circumstances)”.

   Gethsemane means “oil press”, not ‘pleasure’.

   It appears to me that you are yet another person that needs to lie and deceive to prove his foul, false doctrine.
3. Prophet613 on February 17th, 2009 1:05 pm
   

   Praise yahweh father and creator of all and love n yahshua name yes paul according 2 scripture whether in a christian version or the book of yahweh he is hillel lucifers son shalom praise yahweh
4. bug on March 2nd, 2009 5:53 pm
   

   The Jerusalem “church” opposed saul’s ministry to the goi; headed by the pillars (James, Peter and John) sent out missionaries of their own to combat the teachings of saul.

   Thus the people who were most familiar with the teachings of the earthly Yeshua – his brother (James) and the Disciples (e.g. Peter and John) – openly opposed saul’s mission and his version of the gospel.
   The thesis above was first presented in an article called Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensantz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthums in der �ltesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom (The Christ party in the Corinthian community, the opposition of Petrine and Pauline Christianity in the early church, the Apostle Peter in Rome) in the Tubingen Journal for Theology in 1831 by the reknowned nineteenth century theologian from T�bingen, F.C. Baur (1792-1860). While Baur did make some mistakes, his views were fundamentally sound. However his opponents found a convenient strawman in his alleged use of discredited Hegelian metaphysics and sucessfully attacked it. (a) As a result, Baur’s findings fell into disfavor.

   Yet the “Ghosts of T�bingen,” as S.G.F. Brandon described Baur’s idea, refused to be laid to rest. Brandon’s own work The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (1957) revived the theory. In recent years, this thesis has been supported by first-rate critical historical scholars (in their published works) such as:

   C.K. Barrett:
   On Paul (2003,) Essays on Paul (1982)
   Gerd L�demann:
   Paul: The Founder of Christianity (2002,) Heretics (1996,) Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (1989)
   Michael Goulder :
   Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth (2001,) St. Paul Vs. St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions (1994)
   David Sim:
   The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism (1998)
   Robert Eisenmann:
   James, the Brother of Jesus (1996)
   Hyam Maccoby:
   The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (1986,) Revolution in Judea (1973)
   Hugh Schonfield:
   The Jesus Party (1974,) Those Incredible Christians (1968,) Saints Against Caesar (1948)

   In this research paper i provide the compelling evidence for the above thesis.

   Acts (as expected) is completely silent on the opposition saul faced in the various churches he founded in the northeast Mediterranean. Our evidence comes from the epistles of saul. Four of the seven genuine epistles have explicit references, allusions and/or affirmations made against unnamed opponent(s.) We review the evidence from these epistles:
   Galatians
   I Corinthians
   II Corinthians
   The Opponents of I & II Corinthians
   Philippians

   Attempts have been made by some scholars to identify the opponents of saul as groups other then the Jerusalem Church. We will see that all these attempts are unsatisfactory and have a much lower probability than the idea that the opponents were Jews from the Jerusalem Church.

   In conclusion, the evidence that saul’s mission faced a concerted opposition from the Jerusalem church is compelling.

   Opposition to saul in Galatia
   The Galatian letter, composed by saul most probably ~53 or 54 CE, was a defense of the churches he founded there. saul was facing some opposition to this dogma there; another group of missionaries had encroached on his “turf.” (2) The first passage we will look at reveals quite a lot about his opponents:
   Galatians 1:6-9
   [i]I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel – 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.[/i]

   We can tell from the above passage that whoever his opponents were, they were Christians; in the sense that they were preaching about Yeshua. But according to saul they were preaching another gospel that, according to him, “perverts” his own true “version of jesus.” That saul disapproved of this competing gospel is clear, for he openly cursed them.

   From other passages, we learn that they were Jewish Christians (b) because they advocated both circumcision and calendar observations: (3)

   Galatians 6:12
   [i]It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that compel you to be circumcised…[/i]
   Galatians 4:10
   [i]You observe days, months, and seasons and years! [/i]

   Did these missionaries attack saul directly in their preaching? While it did not explicitly say so in this epistle, there are two considerations that provide strong evidence that they did. Firstly saul founded the Galatian churches, and if they (with their different dogma) wanted to make headway, they almost certainly had to make a critique of him and his teachings. Secondly the whole apologetic tone of the first two chapters of Galatians presupposes some kind of accusation. We see two passages there where saul asserted his gospel came direct from G and not from men. Why would saul suddenly say this? It is obvious that some people were making allusions to him having (perhaps defectively) learnt his gospel from other people: (4)

   Galatians 1:1
   [i]saul an apostle – not from men nor through man, but through jesus Christ and G the Father… [/i]
   Galatians 1:11-12
   [i]For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of jesus Christ. [/i]

   From saul’s defense above we can infer with some certainty that the opposing mission claimed that he received his gospel from some people. Who were these people? The only people saul talked about in the first two chapters were the Jerusalem “pillars,” James, Peter and John. We will see that his description of them (during the Jerusalem council) was, to put it mildly, less than flattering:

   Galatians 2:1-2
   [i]Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute [Greek-dokousin]) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.[/i]
   Galatians 2:6
   [i]And from those who were reputed (Greek-dokouton) to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; G shows no partiality) – those, I say, who were of repute (Greek-dokountes) added nothing to me;[/i]

   Galatians 2:9
   [i]and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed (Greek-dokountes) to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship [/i]

   The root of the Greek words used above (translated into English as “of repute” or “reputed to be”) is the same, dokeo, meaning “to seem,” “to suppose.” C.K. Barrett has argued that these words, in common Greek koine usage, very probably implies some kind of deception (whether consciously or otherwise.) (5) Thus the thrust of saul’s reference to the Jerusalem pillars here is that they “seem to think” or were “supposed to be” important. But, as he added in Galatians 2:6, it “makes no difference” to him.

   Thus these passages were a conscious attempt by saul to minimize the importance of the Jerusalem leadership of James, Peter and John. Furthermore the whole thrust of Galatians 1 & 2 was saul’s lack of contact with the Jerusalem leaders and his independence from them. He mentioned that he met Peter and James only three years after his conversion and then only stayed with them for fifteen days. (Galatians 1:18) Then he mentioned that during the Jerusalem council, the pillars “added nothing to me.” (Galatians 2:6)

   After his obvious attempts to minimize the importance of the Jerusalem leadership, he narrated the the incident at Antioch which tells of how he confronted Peter, one of the “pillars” regarding the correctness of his (saul’s) law-free gospel:

   Galatians 2:11-14
   [i]But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” [/i]

   Again note the protaganists that saul had placed opposite himself; it was Peter (Aramaic = Cephas,) after receiving instructions from James, who was compelling goi to “live like Jews.” saul, of course, labelled such actions “hypocrisy.” The important point to note here is that saul is giving the Galatians an example of how he had stood up to the Judaising party. In that example his opponents were the “pillars” themselves: James and Peter!

   These emphatic declarations of independence from the Jerusalem Church, the purposeful minimization of the importance of the leadership and the example of the incident at Antioch all point us to the accusation being made against him by the opposing mission. They also tell us the identity of the accusers.

   We can “mirror” what his opponents were saying by looking at saul’s defense:

   His diminishing the importance of the Jerusalem “pillars” means that his opponents were making the opposite claim: that the leadership of James, Peter and John were of supreme importance.
   By emphasizing his lack of contact with the Jerusalem leadership and their “not adding anything” to his gospel, we can surmise that his opponents emphasized the teaching of the Jerusalem church.
   By claiming that he got his gospel direct from jesus and not from men, shows us that his opponents were making the opposite claim: that saul’s (or anyone else’s) teaching should rightly come from the Jerusalem Church.
   By similarly saying that the appointment of his apostleship comes from jesus, we can tell that the opponents had a different definition of this which was somehow related to the authority of the Jerusalem Church.
   By relating the incident at Antioch, saul was showing how he had in the past confronted such a problem against Peter and James. Since he did not qualify his example in any way, it provides strong evidence that his opponents had the support of James and the Jerusalam church.
   So we can construct the opponents arguments as something like this: “All apostles must be approved by the Jerusalem Church. saul himself acquired his mission from the Jerusalem Church, like we do, but he is preaching in an irresponsible manner (eschewing the importance of the Mosaic Laws even for Gentiles) which is not approved by James and the rest of the leadership.” (6)

   We can summarize our study of the opponents of saul in Galatia. They were Jewish Christians who preached the continued validity of the Mosaic Laws, even for goi. They questioned saul’s authority to preach and his apostleship. They claimed the support of the Jerusalem Church headed by James.

   Opposition in Corinth: I Corinthians
   First Corinthians was probably written ~55 CE. It was written mainly to deal with some practical problems that were besetting the Christian community in Corinth. There were problems of cases of sexual immorality (5:1-13,) legal issues (6:1-11,) issues relating to marriage and singlehood (7:1-40,) acceptability of consuming meat offered to idols (8:1-13; 10:1-11:1,) issues regarding prophecy and speaking in tongues (11:2-16) and how the rich were relating to the poor (11:18-22.) (7)
   Yet even here saul was also facing problems with his mission. There are two passages in this epistle where saul felt compelled to defend his apostleship. The first is:

   I Corinthians 9:1-18
   [i]Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the Seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to our food and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? …12 If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. …17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel. [/i]

   In the above passage saul was making a defense of his apostleship (I Cor 9:1 – see above.) It is obvious from the verse that his status as an apostle was being questioned (9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, surely I am to you.) The same verse also tells us his opponents were outsiders, for the others who did not consider him an apostle were differentiated from the Corinthian congregation (surely I am to you.) His justification for calling himself an apostle was his experience of the resurrected jesus and his founding of the Corinthian Church. (9:1,3)

   From the passage above we know that his opponents were actively attacking saul’s claim of apostleship. Their line of attack was that saul did not receive any payment or support from the Corinthian congregation (9:4-6) – unlike themselves (9:12 If others share this rightful claim….) His explanation for not taking any payment from the Corinthians was simply because he did not want to burden them. Since his opponents took payment and they attacked his status as an apostle because he did not do the same, we can be certain that they used the title “apostle” for themselves. [8]

   Being criticized for not taking payment from the congregation may sound strange to modern ears. But this tradition is certainly present in the Jewish Christian sources relating to the life of Yeshua. One passage, from Q, has Yeshua saying this to his seventy apostles before sending them out on their missionary work:

   Luke 10:7 (also Matthew 10:10)
   [i]Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid…[/i]

   This passage was taken from Q (being present in both Matthew and Luke but not Mark) and thus belonged to a tradition older than the two gospels. As L�demann maintained, the mission this tradition had Yeshua sent the seventy out on was a Jewish Christian one, in the sense that there was no repudiation of the Mosaic Laws. That the opponents criticized saul on this very topic strongly suggests that they were Jewish Christians. (9)

   I Corinthian 15:1-11 also has similarities to I Corinthians 9:1-18. He reiterated the claim that he too has seen the risen jesus as the proof of his apostleship. (I Corinthians 15:7 ; 9:1) Similarly he pointed to his hard work in the mission field (I Corinthian 15:10; 9:16-18) as further proof of this. Since the defense is the same, we are sure the accusations (and the opponents who made them) are the same for both cases. (10)

   Who were these unnamed opponents who attacked saul’s apostleship? We now look at the clues for this. Early on in the epistle we find out that at that time the Corinthian congregation had started to split into different groups:

   I Corinthians 1:11-12
   [i]For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarrelling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to saul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” [/i]

   Thus we see the Corinthian Church claiming allegiance to at least three missionaries: saul, Apollos and Peter (Cephas is the Aramaic form of Peter.) (c) Obviously the group that claimed some allegiance to saul could not be the source of the attacks on saul’s apostleship. We look at the other two groups.

   We see that saul spoke well of Apollos and indicates a kind of cooperation with him in his mission to Corinth:

   I Corinthians 4:6
   [i]I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us to live according to the scriptures.[/i]
   I Corinthians 16:12
   [i]As for our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brethren, but as it was not at all his will to come now. He will come when he has opportunity. [/i]

   These two passages point to a cordial and active partnership between saul and Apollos. What about Peter? Firstly we note that nowhere in Corinthians 1-4, the chapters where he dealt with the split, did saul mentioned explicitly of any agreement with Peter. Indeed there is strong evidence that he indirectly polemicized against Peter:

   I Corinthians 3:4-15
   [i]For when one of you says, “I belong to saul,” and another “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely men? 5 What then is Apollos? What is saul? Servants whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but G gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only G who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are fellow workers for G; you are G’s field, G’s building.
   10 According to the commission of G given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble… 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. [/i]

   The passage above has been separated into two paragraphs to make saul’s meaning clearer. In verse 4 to 9, the metaphor used was that of a garden. He referred to himself “planting” the seed of the church in Corinth and to Apollos “watering it.” All pointing towards a friendly cooperation between these two. Note also the metaphor of growing a garden implied that the garderners were external to the garden (i.e. that they were outsiders.) This is confirmed by the fact that both saul and Apollos were not from Corinth. (According to Acts, saul was from Tarsus [Acts 22:3] while Apollos was from Alexandria. [Acts 18:24])

   The second section (3:10-3:15) utilized a different metaphor: that of laying a foundation for a building. Again the metaphor implied an external agent. But here the tone is darker; no longer do we find the co-operative tone of planting the seed and watering it. saul claimed that “another man” is building upon the foundation which he had laid and subtly cautioned the man to “take care” (3:10.) He warned against using any other foundation apart from jesus Christ (3:11.) Then he alluded to a test with fire which could “burn up” the work leading to “loss” (3:15) Whoever this “other man” is, we can conclude from the tone of the whole paragraph that saul is criticizing him, hinting the work done by this person was, at best, suspect and would be liable to be “burned up” if he does not “take care.”

   There are a few clues that lead us to the identity of this unnamed person. The use of the metaphor of a building and the term “foundation” immediately brings to mind the Jerusalem “pillars” (Galatians 2:9) which consisted of James, Peter and John. Here too the metaphor is that of a building.

   Furthermore having mentioned that jesus Christ was the foundation, he further emphasized that there could be no other foundation and gave as examples of people laying on the foundation with various materials, among other things stones; emphasizing that those who built wrongly will have his work “burned up.” This brings to mind the Matthean verse which had Yeshua saying to Peter (which, remember, means “rock”) “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18) Regardless of the historicity of this passage in Matthew, it points to a tradition which relates Peter (the “Rock”) to the foundation of the church.

   The above two considerations strongly points to Peter being the “other man” in saul’s criticism above. Moreover, recalling I Corinthians 1:12, there were three explicit groups mentioned there: saul, Apollos and Peter. Having mentioned Apollos work in relation to his in I Corinthians 3:4-9, it is quite natural that the next verses would be talking about Peter.

   In addition to the above considerations, we note that while saul mentioned Apollos in a friendly tone, nowhere was this “privilege” given to Peter.

   We can conclude that there is a very high probability, bordering on certainty, that saul is here polemicizing either against Peter, or against the opponents who were in Corinth preaching in Peter’s name. (11) (d)

   We have established that saul was polemicizing against the missionaries that were responsible for the Cephas party. Do we have any evidence that it was this group that made the accusation against saul’s apostleship we saw above in I Corinthians 9 and 15? There are series of hints that point to this direction.

   In I Corinthians 9:5-6 saul compares the right of “the other apostles, the brother of the Lord and Cephas,” versus his and Barnabas’s (!) right to receive payment for their missionary work. The inclusion of Barnabas is surprising at first for nowhere is he mentioned as being in Corinth. However the parallelism between saul and Barnabas on one hand and Peter, the brothers of the Lord (which include James) and the “other apostles” is clear if we consider here that saul is alluding to the Jerusalem agreement in Galatians 2:1-10. There we had saul and Barnabas on one side and James, Peter and John on the other. saul’s rhetorical question on why only he and Barnabas had no right to be paid, seems to sarcastically point to the opponents as being allied with the “circumcision” group of Galatians 2.

   Furthermore the specific mention of the name Cephas, (I Corinthians 9:5) when it should already have been covered by the phrase “other apostles” earlier, means here saul is singling out Peter for emphasis. It seems likely that he needed to do so because Peter’s example was being used by saul’s opponents in their example of an “authentic Disciple” contra saul.

   This leads us to conclude that the opponents that attacked saul’s apostleship were from the Cephas party in Corinth. (14)

   Opposition in Corinth: II Corinthians
   While no scholar doubts the authenticity of the contents of II Corinthians, opinions differ as to whether it was originally a single letter or whether it is made up of fragments of various letters collected by saul’s followers at a later date (with up to fragments of five different letters being suggested.) (15) Luckily for this paper’s length we will not analyze this complex question. Even in the multiple fragment theories, the time within which they are postulated to have been written all fall within the period of around a single year. So we can begin by assuming that the issues and opponents treated would be the same. Furthermore we can safely conclude that all of II Corinthians was written about one year after I Corinthians. (16)
   II Corinthians is certainly more polemical than I Corinthians. saul openly acknowledged that someone has been preaching “another jesus” and a “different gospel”: (17)

   II Corinthians 11:4-5
   [i]For if someone comes and preaches another jesus than the one we preached, or if you received a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. I think I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles. [/i]

   From that short passage above we learn that the opponents are Christians, but not sauline Christians. We know they called themselves “apostles” (e,) for saul again repeated the sarcastic remark “superlative apostles” later:

   II Corinthians 12:11-12
   [i]For I am not at all inferior to these superlative apostles, even though I am nothing. The signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. [/i]

   We also know, from saul’s obvious defense of himself, that they criticized his lack of capability in public speaking and his generally unimpressive demeanor:

   II Corinthians 11:6
   [i]Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not in knowledge; in every way we have made this plain to you in all things.[/i]
   II Corinthians 10:10
   [i]For they say “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak and his speech is of no account.” [/i]

   Like in I Corinthians, the accusation of his not taking payment from the church was also made here:

   II Corinthians 11:7-8
   [i]Did I commit a sin by abasing myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached G’s gospel without cost to you. I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you.[/i]

   (The opponents in making this charge very probably accepted the support of the Corinthian community. This is further confirmed by saul saying that the Corinthians willingly allow someone to “devour them” [II Corinthians 11:20]) However now the opponents added that saul “took the Corinthians in by deceit” and that he “took advantage of them”:

   II Corinthians 7:2
   [i]Open your hearts to us, we have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage (Greek-epleonektesamen) of no one.[/i]
   II Corinthians 12:16-18
   [i]Let it be assumed that I did not burden you. Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit. Did I take advantage (epleonektesa) of you through any of those whom I sent to you? I urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him. Titus did not take advantage (epleonektesen) of you did he? [/i]

   The use of the same Greek root above tells us that the two passages probably refer to the same charge by his opponents. What could the charge be about? Since saul was still talking about not being a burden to the Corinthians obviously the issue was about money. The reference to Titus provides the vital clue. For we are told in II Corinthian 8:1-6 that Titus was one of the people saul sent to Corinth to handle the collection. (The collection for the Jerusalem Church which was agreed upon during the Jerusalem council. [Galatians 2:10]) Thus the accusation must be tied to the collection. We can now see that saul’s opponents were accusing him of taking money from the Corinthians by deceit, what was supposedly for the Jerusalem Church was actually for saul himself!

   Similarly by accusing saul of wavering on this travel plans, they made allusions to his lack of trustworthiness:

   II Corinthians 1:15-18
   [i]Because I was sure of this, I wanted to come to you first; so that you might have a double pleasure? I wanted to visit you on my way to Macedonia, and to come back to you from Macedonia and have you send me on my way to Judea. Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans like a worldly man, ready to say Yes and No at once? As surely as G is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No.[/i]

   So saul’s opponents were saying that saul was unskilled in speaking, had an unimpressive presence, that he did not accept payment from the Corinthian congregation, that he actually defrauded them and that he changed his (travel) plans at whim. In general they said saul did not have the proper qualifications to be an apostle. saul, of course, gave as good as he got. He called his opponents “servants of Satan,” (II Corinthians 11:5) “false apostles” and “deceitful workers.” (II Corinthians 11:13) (f)

   It sounds like this was a no holds barred contest! (18)

   We have established that these “super apostles” make no bones about being opposed to saul. The epistle gave us further clues as to their identity:

   II Corinthians 11:22-23
   [i]Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendents of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one… [/i]

   This means that his opponents were Jews. The term “Hebrews” was used to imply racial purity. The next two, “Israelites” and “descendents of Abraham” are of theological significance since they point to prominent themes in Torah (the five books of Moshe.) The last, “servants of Christ,” confirms what we have deduced from II Corinthians 11:4-5 above, that they were Christians. (19)

   Significantly they also carried with them letters of recommendation:

   II Corinthians 3:1
   [i]Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Surely we do not need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you…[/i]

   Both C.K. Barrett and Michael Goulder have argued that these letters of recommendation most probably originated from the Jerusalem church. If the letters had come from another Church they would not have been effective against saul, who could claim (and did-see Galatians 2:1-10) that his mission had approval from the Jerusalem church. These letters may be the reason why saul could claim no more than parity with (i.e. that he was not inferior to) the “superlative apostles.” This is the first clue that the opponents are tied in some way to the Jerusalem Church. (20)

   saul later complained that the opponents have over-stepped their boundaries:

   II Corinthians 10:12-15
   [i]We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who commend themselves…13 We however will not boast beyond limits, but will keep within the field that G has assigned to us, to reach out even as far as you. 14 For we were not overstepping our limits when we reached you…15 We do not boast beyond limits, that is, in the labor of others… [/i]

   The Greek term kanon is here translated reasonably accurately as limit; implying some kind of boundary or sphere (whether geographical or otherwise.) Now saul is clearly claiming that he has not stepped outside this kanon. Since the whole passage starts with talking about “others” whom saul (sarcastically) “dare not” compare himself with, the implied critique here is that his opponents have overstepped some kind of agreed-upon boundary.

   This brings to mind the Jerusalem agreement (Galatians 2:1-10) where saul supposedly was given the goi world as his sphere of activity. Thus saul uses the result of the Jerusalem agreement to defend his apostolic authority. Recall that in I Corinthians 9 (see above) saul also argued in the same way, he made a reference to the Jerusalem agreement (putting him and Barnabas on one side) to certify his right as an apostle to receive payment from the Corinthian. Thus it becomes “practically necessary” (L�demann) to see saul’s criticism in II Corinthians 10:15 a reference to this agreement. Thus, according to saul’s criticism, it was his opponents who stepped outside the agreed upon boundaries. The only other missionary sphere was that of the Jewish mission led by Peter. (Galatians 2:8) Thus, here again, we have another piece of evidence that saul’s opponents originated from Jerusalem. (21)

   Another clue to the origins of the opponents lies in the accusation of saul defrauding the Corinthians through the guise of the collection, (II Corinthians 7:2, 12:16-18) which has been discussed above. So far we have seen that accusations of saul’s opponents had been things that could be verified by the Corinthians: his lack of public speaking skills, his unimpressive demeanor, his not taking any financial support from the congregation and the changing of travel plans. Now it would be strange if the accusation of defrauding the Corinthians through the collection was made without there being any basis whatsoever. Since they could point to some kind of evidence for their other accusations, what could the basis be for this particular accusation? The only one is this: saul’s opponents were from Jerusalem. So they may have said something like this: “Collection, what collection? We are from Jerusalem and have not received anything from him! He must be using the money for himself.” Thus the fact that the accusation about saul using the collection to defraud the Corinthians could be made at all points to a Jerusalem origin of his opponents. (22)

   The final piece of evidence that these opponents were sent by the Jerusalem Church is in this passage:

   II Corinthians 5:16
   [i]From now own, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view (Greek-kata sarka-literally “according to the flesh,”) even though we once knew Yeshua from a human point of view, (kata sarka) we know him no longer in that way. [/i]

   The “we” in the second half of the passage refers, not to saul, but to the people who knew the earthly Yeshua (”according to the flesh.”) Yet in this passage saul repudiates this knowledge as unimportant. This passage is tied to his opponents, since a few verses before this saul mentioned that he was “not commending” himself to the Corinthians again, (5:12) a clear reference to the opponents’ self-commendation. (II Cor 3:1, 10:12-15) The obvious implication here is that saul was purposely downplaying the importance of knowledge regarding the earthly Yeshua because his opponents were making the opposite claim: that their acquaintance with the earthly Yeshua and his teachings were of utmost significance. The only group who could have claimed this were the Jerusalem pillars themselves (James, Peter and John) and their emissaries! (23)

   That these opponents where preaching a Jewish Christian doctrine, we can be quite certain. In a passage that starts with saul talking about those with “letters of recommendation,” he makes this point of contrast between the Mosaic Law (”the ministry of death”) and his own theology (”the ministry of the spirit”):

   II Corinthians 3:7-8
   [i]Now if the ministry of death, chiselled in letters on stone tablets, came in glory so that the people of Israel could not gaze at Moses face because of the glory of his face, a glory now set aside, how much more will the ministry of spirit come in glory? [/i]

   Here saul is making the point that the Mosaic Laws have been replaced by the glory of the gospel: clearly contrasting himself to his opponents. (24)

   We can thus conclude, for II Corinthians, that saul’s opponents were Jewish Christian (g) emissaries sent by the Jerusalem Church. They openly attacked his claim of apostleship and were preaching a different theology about Yeshua from saul’s.

   I & II Corinthians opponents
   We know that the opponents in II Corinthians were Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. We have also seen that the opponents in I Corinthians were those identified with the Cephas party. Were these two groups identical or were they two distinct groups? We find many similarities between the opponents in the two epistles: (26)

   Both groups challenged saul’s apostleship.
   Both groups criticized saul for not accepting any support from the Corinthian congregation.
   Both groups exercised the right of support from the congregation.
   Both groups called themselves “apostles.”
   These similarities show that it is very likely that the opponents of saul in I & II Corinthians are one and the same. They are Jewish Christians from Jerusalem sent under the authority of Peter.

   Philippi opposition
   Philippians is a captivity letter, written by saul from prison. (Philippians 1:1, 3:1a) saul was imprisoned many times. Most scholars consider that the two most likely place this letter could have been written from was either Ephesus (II Corinthians 1:8-10 may allude to this) or Rome. (Acts 28) If it was written from Ephesus this letter is to be dated to ~56 CE; if Rome was the place, then it would be ~62 CE. (27)
   The main passage of interest in the Philippian epistle is in chapter 3:

   Philippian 3:2-6
   [i]Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate (katatomen; katatome = mutilation) the flesh. 3 For we are the true circumcision (peritome,) who worship G in spirit, and glory in Christ jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh. 4 Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, 6 as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless. [/i]

   Note that saul called his opponents dogs, a general Jewish term of abuse. saul’s play with words is lost in the English translation but the katatome-peritome comparison is clear. Those who “mutilate the flesh” were circumcised Jews. saul’s assertion of his own Jewish roots (Philippians 3:24-6) parallels the similar assertion in II Corinthians 11:22-23 above.

   That saul asked his congregation to be on the look out for them suggests that these are Jewish-Christian missionaries. It is unlikely that the opponents simply bragged about being circumcised. For saul to bring it up in this manner suggests that they were compelling circumcision. The passage below suggests that these opponents also enforced food taboos:

   Philippian 3:18
   [i]Their end is destruction, their god is the belly and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. [/i]

   saul is here alluding to the food laws (their god is the belly) and circumcision (they glory in their shame.) The short anecdote here has yielded the following facts: the opponents in Philippi are Jewish Christians who demanded adherence to the Mosaic Laws.

   We do not have any direct information from the epistle as to their origins. However, when we compare this epistle to Galatians and I/II Corinthians, we can make two deductions that allow us to reach a conclusion.

   First, saul defended himself in the same way in all three epistles. He asserted his former blameless observance of the Law and his persecution of the church. (Philippians 3:4-6, Galatians 1:13, I Corinthians 15:8) He emphasized his own Jewish roots. (Philippians 3:5, II Corinthians 11:22-23) He contrasted his Christian existence to his former life as a pharise. (Philippians 3:8, Galatians 1:15) That he defended himself in the same way is a powerful indication that he knew he was facing the same opponents.

   Second, we find that Philippi was within the vicinity of Corinth. The fact that there were two Jewish Christian anti-sauline groups so close to one another geographically and within the same time period suggest identity.

   These strongly suggest that the opponents in Philippi are the same as those in Galatia and Corinth and that they originate from Jerusalem. (28)

   Identifying saul’s Opponents
   There are, of course, alternate identification by scholars for the opponents of saul in the various epistles. We will take a brief survey of these below:

   Gnostics
   Walter Schmithals is the originator of this thesis. In his book Gnosticism in Corinth (1971) and Paul and the Gnostics (1972) he claimed that the opponents of saul in all his epistles can be identified as Gnostics.
   There is a serious flaw in Schmithals argument: there is simply no evidence for the fully developed Gnosticism in his postulate before the second century CE. (29)

   As Jerry Sumney pointed out, Schmithals analytical procedures have serious methodological flaws. He used second century sources to inform him of the Gnosticism saul faces. And for his theory to work, he had to assume saul misunderstood his opponents. It is certainly more likely that a professor 2000 years later misunderstands the situation than to assume that saul, who was there in the thick of the fight, failed to comprehend his opponents. (30)

   Dieter Georgi suggested in his book The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (1986) that saul’s opponents in II Corinthians were Hellenistic-Jewish divine men (theios aner and theoi andres.) These are Hellenistic-Jews of the Diaspora who traveled from city to city and from synagogue to synagogue. They were preachers, religious propagandist who exhibited pneumatic (i.e. spiritual) gifts including interpretation of scripture and ecstatic experiences. According to Georgi the early Christian mission took this as a “model” for religious propaganda and that these were the opponents of saul in II Corinthians. (31)
   Georgi’s idea fails on a few counts. It is by no means certain that his reconstruction of the Hellenistic-Jewish divine men is historically accurate. Furthermore the divine men were, according to Georgi, supposed to pride themselves on self-sufficiency. However if that was the case what were they doing with letters of recommendation? (II Corinthians 3:1) (32)

   Pneumatics
   Ernst Kasemann have suggested that the opponents in II Corinthians were pneumatics. The word here refers to spiritually powerful men. Men who had great powers, speak with conviction and have ecstatic experiences. Yet this suggestion is unwarranted by the evidence. For saul’s answering to criticism for his lack of spiritual powers in II Corinthians were more in answer to the congregation there than to his opponents. We know from I Corinthians (I Corinthians 4:6ff, 5:2, Ch. 8, Ch. 12-14) when there was not yet “full blown” opposition to saul, that the congregation there had an interest in spiritual powers which saul actually tried to dissuade them from. Thus it was not that the intruders were pneumatics but that the Corinthians themselves looked for pneumatic powers in any one claiming to be an apostle. (33)

   Conclusion on The Opponents of saul
   The above considerations show that the evidence that saul’s opponents in Galatia, Corinth and Philippi were apostles sent by the Jerusalem Church is extremely strong. There are a couple more details that help clinch the case.
   It is consistent with what we know happened at Antioch and later in Jerusalem. We saw that saul had a falling out with the apostles from Jerusalem after Antioch and was never reconciled with them during his final visit to Jerusalem. Recall that the four epistles were all written after the incident at Antioch and before his final visit to Jerusalem. Finding that the Jerusalem church hounded his mission is consistent with these two facts that we have established.

   saul’s was concerned that his collection may be rejected by the “saints in Jerusalem.” (Romans 15:31) If one accepts Acts’ picture of the cordial relationship between saul and the Jerusalem church, this apprehension simply does not make sense. It makes perfect sense given what we have found above. If James, Peter and John had sent out emissaries to combat saul, he would obviously be worried about how they would accept him in Jerusalem. The collection was his “peace offering,” his last attempt to reconcile himself with the Jerusalem Church.

   We can safely conclude that the evidence is compelling that the opponents saul faced in Galatia, Corinth and Philippi were Jewish Christian emissaries sent by the Jerusalem Church headed by James, Peter and John.

   Notes
   a. Georg W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) was a German philosopher reknowned for his idea of the “dialectic.” The dialectic is a metaphysical system which supposedly explains historical change. Something comes up in history which can be called a “thesis.” An opposition to the idea or system then appears to the original thesis. This is called the “anti-thesis.” Eventually the two will clash resulting in a new thesis called the “synthesis” – which includes within it elements of the previous thesis and anti-thesis. Hegelian metaphysics is, of course, nonsense. (Karl Marx presented a modified version of it called “dialectic materialism” in his theory of communism.)
   The critics of Baur’s work claimed that he was so influenced by the Hegelian dialectic that it clouded his historical analysis. In other words Baur was keen to fit his history into the Hegelian scheme; the Jewish Christian church was the “thesis” which was opposed by the law free Gentile church of saul, the “anti-thesis.” The opposition between these two were eventually resolved in Catholic Christianity (the “synthesis”) which can be seen in the work of Luke (the gospel and Acts) towards the end of the first century. Thus Baur’s work was “tainted” by preconceived metaphysical notions. The critique was simple, complete and repeated blindly from generation to generation of scholars.

   However as Michael Goulder has shown, Baur’s original article was written in 1831, but he was known to have effectively read Hegel, at the earliest only in 1833, two years after his seminal article. This conclusively shows that the criticism of Baur has been unfair and too simplistic. It looks like scholars who want to “slay” the ghost of Baur will have to roll up their sleeves again! (1)

   b. The term “Jewish-Christian” is open to misinterpretation and it’s uses and definitions vary tremendously among various authors. So it is important for me to note how i use this term. This term is reserved strictly for Christians (or perhaps more accurately, “followers of Yeshua” – since the name “Christian” itself is an anachronism if used unreservedly for the pre-70CE church) who uphold the continued validity of the Mosaic Laws. These refers to the rules and regulations found in the five books of Moses (Torah.) The rules and regulations include circumcision, food taboos and calendar observances (Sabbath, holy days etc.) Jewish-Christians are those who either insist on full or partial observance of the Mosaic Laws by Non-Jewish converts to Christianity. By this definition, James and Peter were Jewish Christians and saul was not.
   c. There are differing opinions as to whether the “Christ party” actually existed. L�demann (”Opposition” p261) thinks they do not exist. Barrett (”Essays” p3-6) think there is some evidence for their existence. Goulder, (”Paul” p20) like L�demann, thinks that it does not indicate a fourth group but simply hints of a Jewish Christian Christology. There is also some evidence that the term could have been added by a later copyist since the Clement (fl. ~96 CE) in I Clement 47:3 quoted I Corinthians 1:12 but mentioned only saul, Apollos and Cephas.
   d. Was Peter actually in Corinth? C.K. Barrett thinks there is some evidence for this. We know that Cephas certainly traveled outside Judea. For Galatians 2:11-14 had him at Antioch. Later Christian tradition had him at Rome and the pseudo-Petrine epistle I Peter 1:1 had him writing to churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. (12) However this can show no more than the possibility that Peter could have been in Corinth. I agree with Michael Goulder and consider it more likely that the opposition was a missionary group, external to Corinth, who claimed allegiance to Peter. (13)
   e. That the designation of saul’s opponents as “apostles” is extremely significant. The emissaries to Antioch from Jerusalem were referred to as “false brothers” (Galatians 2:4) or “certain men from James,” (Galatians 2:12) not apostles. Thus this designation presupposes emissaries that wield considerable authority in the Church. Indeed some scholars (e.g. C.K. Barrett, Ernst Kasemann) have even suggested that the “super apostles” mentioned here (II Corinthians 11:5, 12:11) refers to the Jerusalem leadership of James, Peter and John. However i am in agreement with Gerd L�demann and Michael Goulder that the immediate contexts of 2 Corinthian 11:1-7 and 12:11-13 suggest that this term was meant by saul to refer to his opponents who were present in Corinth. (34)
   f. Anticipating an objection to our conclusion below – that saul could never have used such strong words to refer to either the Jerusalem apostles or their emissaries- it is important to remind the reader that saul had no qualms calling Peter a hypocrite (Galatians 2:13) when the latter disagreed with saul’s interpretation of the gospel to the goi.
   g. Despite the preponderance of evidence given, a common objection against this assessment of saul’s opponents as “Judaizers” (i.e. Mosaic Law abiding Christians) is the absence of any discussion or polemic about circumcision in the Corinthian correspondence. Yet this objection is spurious. Firstly there is no evidence that all Jerusalem Jewish Christians demanded circumcision from all would be proselytes. We have seen, however they had understood the Jerusalem agreement, both James and Peter agreed that there could be a mission to the goi that does not require circumcision. Furthermore the Apostolic Decree (which is very probably historical but, contrary to the claim in Acts, not written at the Jerusalem Council) also shows that goi can be accepted into the group without requiring circumcision initially but, demands that they respect it and adhere to its minimum requirements.
   Indeed the whole issue of requirements of circumcision has an obvious analogy in (non-Christian) Judaism. The Judaism of that time drew a distinction between “G-fearers” and full proselytes. The latter became fully Jews and were circumcised. The “G-fearers” were of a lesser class of membership and could move on to become full proselytes in the future. To become full proselytes, of course, they have to be circumcised. There is absolutely no reason to think that James and the rest of the leadership did not share a similar view (since they still consider themselves Jews!) (25)

   References
   1. Goulder, Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth: p10-11
   2. Meeks, Writings of St. Paul: p11
   3. L�demann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity: p97
   4. ibid.: p97
   5. Barrett, Essays on Paul: p95
   6. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church: p136-138
   Bernheim, James Brother of Jesus: p183-184
   L�demann, op. cit.: p97-101
   7. Barrett, Paul: An Introduction to his Thought: p15
   8. L�demann, op. cit.: p65-68
   9. ibid.:p68-69
   10. ibid.:p72-74
   11. Barrett, Essays: p32-33
   Goulder, op. cit.: p21-23
   L�demann, op. cit.: p75-78
   12. Barrett, Essays: p32
   13. Goulder, op. cit.: p20
   14. Goulder, op. cit.: p29-30
   L�demann, op. cit.: p68-71
   15. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament: p548
   16. L�demann, op. cit.: p80-81
   17. Barrett, Essays: p60
   18. Barrett, Essays: p127
   L�demann, op. cit.: p82-86
   19. Goulder, op. cit.: p39
   L�demann, op. cit.: p86
   20. Barrett, Paul: p36
   Goulder, op. cit.: p33-34
   21. Barrett, Essays: p17-20
   L�demann, op. cit.: p92-94
   22. ibid.: p66
   23. Goulder, op. cit.: p38
   24. Barrett, Essays: p79
   Brandon, op. cit.: p142
   25. Barrett, Essays: p21
   Barrett, Paul: p38
   L�demann, op. cit.: p95-96
   26. L�demann, op. cit.: p97
   27. Meeks, op. cit.: p94-95
   28. Barrett, Paul: p40-41
   Bernheim, op. cit.: p186
   L�demann, op. cit.: p105-109
   29. Roetzel, Paul The Man and the Myth: p198
   30. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents: p43-48, 79, 84
   31. ibid.: p50-51
   32. Barrett, Essays: p62
   Goulder, op. cit.: p34
   Sumney, op. cit.: p55
   33. Barrett, Essays: p69-73
   L�demann, op. cit.: p83-84
   Sumney, op. cit.: p63-67
   34. Barrett, Essays: p74
   Goulder, op. cit.: p41-42
   L�demann, op. cit.: p87-89
5. Prophet613 on March 10th, 2009 3:56 am
   

   Praise be to yahweh greetings in yahshua’s name i really enjoyed reading yo essay on the first anti-messiah liar-son of the teacher of lies satan saul-paul of tarsus. I have a question for u my brother.the almighty father yahweh commanded that we should live by his laws forever(deut11:1,isayah 40:8) and we can’t add or subtract from the law(deut4:2)he will not alter what his lips has spoken(psalms 89:34)he wont change so remember the law of moses(malachi 3:6,4:4). Yahshua said he wasnt destroying not even the least of the commandments(matt 5:17-20).why is their even a debate 2 what laws 2 keep? Acts quotes james as 2 saying as 4 the gentiles do no such thing(acts 21:25). Yet after all the christian confusion of letters starting at acts and ending with philemon, the book of revalation has yahshua quoting at the end of the book “blessed are those who keep his(yahweh) laws or commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city”(revelation 22:14).
6. Glenda on March 17th, 2009 12:54 am
   

   I know this isn’t addressed to me, and I know I’m still only a learner, but if it’s ok to offer an opinion, I don’t consider that Acts teaches against Gentiles obeying God’s Laws.

   Before Acts, Jesus had clarified that circumcision was Abrahamic Law embraced and promoted by Moses, so was not actually Mosaic Law as per usual Pharisee religious ‘traditions’ teachings
   JN 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

   In Acts, some Pharisee religious ‘traditionalists’ claimed that Gentiles must be circumcised AS PER MOSES ‘to be saved’.
   ACTS 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

   The Pharisee ‘traditional’ claim seems problematic for a couple of reasons:
   1. Circumcision was not ‘Mosaic’ Law as Jesus had clarified
   2. ‘Salvation’ is to ‘be saved’ FROM SIN. To be saved from sin one must repent ie turn from sin/lawlessness.

   The eye-witness apostles recognised that Gentiles were having Pharisee religious ‘tradition’ views pushed on them, as Jews, including apostles, had it pushed on them, and thankfully the apostles said Gentiles were welcome to avoid Pharisee religious tradition load and instead could learn true Mosaic Law at Sabbath synagogue and while learning God’s Laws, Gentiles should avoid specific major offenses
   Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
   Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

   The issue later raised against Paul in Acts, is also about circumcision/Mosaic law/customs. The apostles never said that Jews should suddenly ignore ‘all’ the ‘traditions’/customs they had been loaded with (they only rejected human commands that opposed God), and they didn’t argue over semantics as to circumcision being Abrahamic rather than Mosaic law, since the outcome was the same anyway. Paul taught otherwise
   Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

   Again it is clarified that this is the same issue that was previously addressed regarding Gentiles:
   Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

   Gentiles must have understood requirements, because they attended Sabbath synagogue ACTS 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

   Peter also helped Gentiles learn to live as Jews, which infuriated Paul
   Gal 2:14 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, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

   We definitely must repent of lawlessness/sin and learn and do God’s Laws.
   It is good that Jesus clarified that all God’s Laws are based on LOVE for God first and then for fellow man. God’s Laws teach us how to love properly, rather than errantly consider that love is some mental and emotional warm fuzzy ‘feeling’ or ‘nice ‘thought’. Love is practical and active … it is giving clothing to a cold person, rather than saying the pretty words ‘be warm’. Faith without works is dead. The word ‘love’ without merciful action is a lie. I truly believe that the true apostles in Acts did not teach against Gentiles embracing God’s Laws and did not teach against Jews embracing acceptable ‘traditions’ that don’t oppose God. I don’t believe that they taught against Gentiles being circumcised either. I believe they were right in rejecting the Pharisee claim that Gentiles must be circumcized as per Moses to be saved.
7. Glenda on March 17th, 2009 1:03 am
   

   “Paul certainly tied Peter’s hands when he stole Peter’s Apostleship to the Gentiles and he led Peter where he didn’t want to go when he declared that Peter was ordained as Apostle to the Jews.”
   =
   rob Peter to pay Paul
8. techngo on June 11th, 2009 12:40 pm
   

   ‘Be simple for I am simple’ said Yahshua.
   We are opening a Pandora’s Box, but I urge you all to keep your words short, simple and clear.

   Let those who are blind continue to be blind. Let those who seek light continue to find it.

   I encourage those who are seeking to only read the RED text in your bibles. The texts in RED are the words of your Messiah. No one will dare to contradict it. Read it, study it, absorb it and then do it.

   Become more then a Christian, become one like Him.
   Your brother
   Benjamin.
9. Glenda on June 12th, 2009 7:36 pm
   

   You are right the message is only for those who desire it:
   Mat 10:12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
   Mat 10:13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
   Mat 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

   Luk 10:5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.
   Luk 10:6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
   Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
   Luk 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
   Luk 10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
   Luk 10:10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
   Luk 10:11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

   The message is not for those who don’t appreciate it:
   MT 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

   blessings Benjamin
10. Sonofaduke on July 6th, 2009 5:58 pm
    

    Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
11. A Watchman on July 7th, 2009 5:20 am
    

    Sonofaduke,

    Acts 23: 1-11 is a very interesting portion of scripture.

    Any intellectual person who knows their bible, reading these verses with an open inquisitive mind, not harboring any bias either for or against the integrity of Paul, is going to question the validity of the statements made within these verses.

    Paul has previously been told by James; “many thousands among the Jews of those who have believed (in YAHU’SHUA), are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses Law, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs”.

    James, knowing that the Jewish followers of the way of YAHU’SHUA are going to want to deal with Paul when they see him, gives Paul commandment saying; “We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law”.

    Of course the Jews from Asia, when they see Paul in the Temple waiting until the sacrifice was offered for himself (even though Paul teaches that Christ’s death did away with the need for Temple sacrifices) and the other four men, they are not taken in by Pauls Token gesture of lawfulness and drag him off to kill him.

    As you know, Paul in Acts 23: 1-11, is defending himself before the chief priests and all the Council of the elders of the Temple in Jerusalem.

    Now… With an open mind… Let’s start with verse 1 of this story;

    1Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.”

    Paul says, “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.”

    Now… Paul saying something like this seems very strange to me… considering that he spent a good portion of his life breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord. It seems Especially strange when one of Pauls most quoted sayings is, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. How you can sin and fall short of the glory of God with a clear conscience is beyond me.

    You see… If I had lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day… I never would have seen the need for repentance.

    The only person I know who can honestly say “I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God”, is YAHU’SHUA HA MASHIACH. According to scripture He is the only one who is blameless according to the Law.

    Or is He… ? ?

    If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
    circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin (a ravenous wolf-Genesis 49:27), a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
    as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. (Philippians 3:4-6)

    Woah… According to Paul… YAHU’SHUA wasn’t the only man to fulfil the Law… Paul was also blameless according to the Law.

    So Paul… “lived life with a perfectly good conscience before God” and was “as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless”

    Far out Man…

    “If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:”… (does that include Jesus?)

    Wait a minute…

    Didn’t Paul say “I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire”. (Romans 7:7-8) and; “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.”, “For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing”. (Romans 7:14-20)

    It just doesn’t make sense. Paul is telling one group of people that he is “as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless”, yet he is telling another group of people that he has no power within himself to stop from doing what is evil.

    Paul has to make up his mind…

    Is he a sinner that does not have enough self control to refrain from doing evil…?
    Or is he blamelessly righteous in his flesh, according to the law…?

    Having an open mind… If I was a lawyer in a court of law and brought Paul in to defend his own testimony… according to his own words… Paul would be thrown out of court as an unreliable witness before I even get past the first statement.

    With a clear conscience, based on other statements made by Paul… I cannot accept the statement made in Acts 23:1 as being legitimate. Paul may believe his statement to be true, but if Paul can murder christians and commit other sins with a clear conscience… Then when Paul declares “Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4:2) he seems to be describing himself.

    Let’s move on…

    2The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth.
    3Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?”

    “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall”

    I can only assume that Paul the Pharisee was present when YAHU’SHUA spoke these words; “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” But Paul must have felt the need to add a threat (God is going to strike you) to the statement. It reminds me of the incident involving two brothers known as “Sons of Thunder” which evoked a rebuke from the master, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them”. Apparently Paul doesn’t know what Spirit he is of either.

    4But the bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?”
    5And Paul said, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.’”

    I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest…???

    Now that IS ridiculous…!!!

    Paul was a Pharisee…

    According to the bible… Paul was with the High Priest when he questioned Stephen. Acts 7:58 states that they laid their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul while they stoned Stephen.

    In Acts 9 Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,
    and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

    In Acts 22:5 Paul calls on the high priest and all the Council of the elders stating that “they can testify that From them I also received letters to the brethren, and started off for Damascus in order to bring even those who were there to Jerusalem as prisoners to be punished”.

    Paul was very familiar with the Sanhedrin and the High Priest… Not to mention the fact that the robes and demeanor of the High Priest made him very recognizable.

    Paul not recognizing the High Priest would be like me walking into the vatican and not recognizing the Pope.

    6But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!”

    What…???

    Here we are… Almost at the end of the book of acts, and Paul cries out to the Sanhedrin council… “Brethren, I am a Pharisee”…

    One minute Paul/Saul is a Pharisee… Then he is a follower of YAHU’SHUA… And the next minute he is one of the Pharisees again… Then he is a christian again…

    YAHU’SHUA said, about the Pharisees;
    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
    Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’
    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
    You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
    You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.
    So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
    and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’
    So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
    Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
    You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

    A man of God can NOT possibly call these Pharisees ‘Brethren’…

    Well Paul certainly Sounds like a Hypocrite to me…
    (either that… or he really is a serpent pharisee testifying against himself)

    hypocrisy:
    The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
    An act or instance of such falseness.

    The word hypocrite used here according to Strongs concordance means: an actor, stage player, a dissembler, pretender, hypocrite

    “I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!”

    NO He’s Not!

    “you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses Law, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs”. (Acts 21:21)

    Paul is a liar.

    Now…

    On to your verse…

    Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

    Are there any witnesses…???
12. Glenda on July 11th, 2009 10:14 am
    

    There are 2 ‘Jesus’ being preached in NT …
    one is a pro-law Jesus whose teachings will never change and this Jesus will not be seen after resurrection until EVERYONE sees him and this Jesus is flesh and NOT spirit and only speaks God’s Words, as preached by eye-witness apostles,
    while the 2nd Jesus is a law-cancelling non-flesh Jesus whose teachings have changed, and who appears as a disembodied spirit to an individual in isolated places speaking punch lines from pagan plays

    An example of differences between the 2 Jesus, is the casting out of demons

    The Spirit of God/YHWH, whose name Jesus was given by God, (Jesus = YaShua = YHWH saves) enables casting out devils
    JAS 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

    Devils could be cast out by sons of priests
    MT 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do ***your children*** cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges.
    LK 11:19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do ***your sons*** cast [them] out? therefore shall they be your judges.

    Devils could also be cast out in the name of flesh Jesus, whether the person was a disciple of flesh Jesus or not, because using the name of flesh Jesus is calling on the name of God/YHWH to save
    Luk 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils ***in thy name***; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
    Luk 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
    Mar 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils ***in thy name***, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
    Mar 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle ***in my name***, that can lightly speak evil of me.

    Flesh Jesus affirmed that even lawless people could cast out devils in his name, even if such people were hell-bound
    Mat 7:21 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.
    Mat 7:22 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?
    Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    Devils could NOT be cast out by sons of priests (disdainfully referred to as vagabonds), in the name of the Jesus ***whom Paul preached***
    Act 19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by ****JESUS WHOM PAUL PREACHETH****.
    Act 19:14 And there were seven ***sons of *** one Sceva, a Jew, and ***chief of the priests***, which did so.
    Act 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
    Act 19:16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

    These devils above knew Paul!
    How is that?
    We know why the devils recognise flesh Jesus for a specific reason
    LK 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, ***Thou art Christ the Son of God****. And he rebuking [them] suffered them not to speak: for ***they knew that he was Christ****.
    Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, ****Jesus, thou Son of God***? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

    Why do the demons know Paul and the Jesus he preaches and refuse to be evicted in that name?

    There are also 2 ‘Gods’ being preached in NT and 2 ‘gospels’ as well.
    Jesus and eye-witnesses preached scriptural YHWH, while Paul preached the ‘unknown god’ Zeus and quoted pagan Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus without clarifying to non-pagans which god he was preaching. Paul didn’t have to clarify this to Zeus-worshippers, because they already knew.

    The gospel preached by Jesus and eye-witnesses was that God’s Words and Law are eternal and that YHWH is willing to forgive our previous lawlessness if we repent and that we can be pleasing to God by following the example set by Jesus of living and loving rightly and mercifully.

    The gospel preached by Paul is that instead of personal repentance being required for forgiveness, the death of Jesus paid for old sins and then the law was cancelled so lawlessness/sin can no longer be defined so nobody can be guilty of breaking any law that no longer exists
13. bruce on September 15th, 2009 1:54 pm
    

    Apostol Peter wrote two letters of the bible and he mentioned the word of wisdom just one time and it was regarding the wisdom that GOD gave to Paul. Then if Peter does not questioned Paul’s teaching but instead he praised him, who are you to question Paul??? , I say this web page is a fail stone for those who are seeking the truth of GOD.
14. bruce on September 15th, 2009 2:16 pm
    

    2 PETER 3:15 And consider that the longsuffering of our LORD is salvation – as also our beloved brother Paul,acording to the wisdom given to him has written to you.
15. Glenda on September 16th, 2009 11:11 pm
    

    Prophecy of Jesus concerning Peter:
    JN 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

    We see the end of Peter with his hands tied and taken in a direction he would not have wished to go.
    Jesus spoke truth.

    Experts agree with earliest church fathers (eg Origen, Eusebius)) that Peter did not author the 2nd epistle with his name on it and the letter was never mentioned or quoted by ancient . It was only accepted into some canon after a great deal of debate and is recognised as pseudepigraphical.
    Internal evidence agrees with experts, eg. Peter was an unlearned (G62 ILLITERATE!!!) and ignorant (G2399 IDIOT!!!) man ACTS 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were ****unlearned and ignorant men****, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

    An unlearned/illiterate ‘idiot’ who understood directly from Jesus that the salvation message is so simple that a child could understand it, would not disdain other ***unlearned*** men in an incredibly ‘learned’ letter that Peter was incapable of writing (maybe Paul’s friend Sylvanus wrote again??? eg 1Pe 5:12) since Peter couldn’t even write!!!:
    2Pe 3:16 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.

    However. Paul often uses the term ***unlearned*** (G2399 IDIOT) and associates it with unbelievers, despite Peter being an ****unlearned**** believer,
    1COR 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the ***unlearned*** say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
    1COR 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are ****unlearned****, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
    1COR 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one *****unlearned****, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

    The non-Petrine 2nd epistle doesn’t call Paul an apostle.

    Friendly terms reflect the term-user rather than the subject of the terminology eg Jesus called Judas ‘friend’ while evil Judas was betraying him!!! The writer of 2 Peter used kind terminology regarding Paul. Paul wasn’t so kind in his terminology of the true apostles. Paul referred to them rather disdainfully eg ‘the circumcision’ or ‘SEEMED to be pillars’ etc. Such disdainful terminology is a poor reflection on Paul.

    The non-Petrine 2nd epistle also doesn’t say whether the wisdom given was beneficial or deadly, but does warn it’s hard to be understood and could lead to destruction. God allowed the deadly wisdom tree in paradise. Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to ***make one wise****, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

    A tree is known by fruit. Jesus is the humble tree of life. Paul is the proud tree of knowledge. Pride goes before a fall. Choose wisely what you eat.
16. sophia on November 12th, 2009 1:04 am
    

    Ralph Ellis (in his book, “King Jesus”) makes a great case that Josephus Flauvius and Saul-Paul are one and the same. The assumed dates seem to be a problem in this theory; however, Ellis surmounts this with close examination of time-lines and logic. If this is truth, it explains MUCH as to the agenda of Paul-Saul.

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!