How could Paul “hijack” Christianity when he was so universally distrusted by the Christian community after his conversion? “This is the man who persecuted Christians” was the refrain among the believers, for years after Paul believed in Christ. Paul is the _last_ person whom we could expect to have any luck in persuading his former victims to believe _him,_ and disbelieve either Jesus’ teachings or that of the Twelve. As proof, Paul had to fight to convince people even of his apostleship, let alone his teachings (1 Cor. 9:1). And he went up to Jerusalem to confer with first Peter and James (Gal.1:18-20), and later with all the apostles (Gal. 2:1-10). Just to make sure he was preaching the true Gospel. This whole notion of “hijacking” by Paul is impossible and incredible.
It also doesn't make much sense when you consider why he was persecuting them in the first place. If he was a snake in the grass, he'd be trying to maneuver them back toward rabbinic Judaism, but based on his letters and his comments at the first council at Jerusalem, Paul was very unambiguously on the anti-Judaizer side of that debate.
I will say the first time I read through the gospels I was really inspired and filled with hope by Jesus words. Then I read the epistles and it felt like I was burdened by rules and regulations. Over time I realized that the epistles really help give more practicality to the gospel in our daily lives.
Paul's letters can be very deep and require study of the entire book, not just the chapter to grasp their understanding. You will find people picking scriptures and making them "rules" to follow. I find it good to read parts of the Old Testament, the Gospel and then Paul which all link together. Requires a study bible or guide.
Interesting. The gospels had the exact opposite impact on me. I couldn’t even get through the sermon on the mount before feeling absolutely crushed by Jesus’ impossible standards: Matthew 5:19-20, “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:21-22, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” Matthew 5:27-29, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.” Matthew 5:33-37, “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.” Matthew 5:38-42, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” Matthew 5:43-48, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
The idea that Paul hijacked Christianity doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about it. His message doesnt change the Gospels, nor does it change the message of the other NT writers.
Also wouldn’t make sense either when you consider he was persecuting Christians, meaning he wanted nothing to do with them and viewed them as heretics… that is until Jesus revealed Himself to him on the road to Damascus. One could argue “well maybe Paul wanted to undermine the true Gospel by changing what happened”, yet everything he says agrees and supports the Gospel, like you’ve said.
Agreed. Peter endorsed Paul's epistles in 2 Peter 3:15-16. Even after Paul got right up in his lambchops for not eating with Gentiles in the presence of other Jews in Gal 2:11-12. Solid Pauline support.
"Paul is not inventing Christianity, he’s inheriting Christianity and he’s making sure that he’s being faithful to preach the same message.” -Testify [6:34 - 6:41] Loved this comment! Very insightful and well-layered response. Thank you for the research and all the great content!
Paul also said that Moses received the law via angels Gal 3:19 when we all know Moses spoke directly to God , he also claims to have had revelations and visions yet he was not a prophet 2 corinthians 12:1 . Paul is 100% a liar
All Paul is guilty of was elevating christianity so it was more cohesive. What he did was to give practical wisdom to a church still growing and emerging from paganistic tendecies. The spirit of Jesus did well guiding Paul to the truth.
@@Gilaffa137But does not Paul clarify what he meant in Galatians 3 verse 20. Granted Paul in not a prophet in the old testament sense but he was in the caregory of prophet tradition of the bible. I may for example have some theological knowledge of the bible but l am not a theologist.
Just as a note, although there's no definite proof, several scholars that I've run into believe that Saul was among the Pharisees that Jesus debated. His teacher Gamaliel (Acts 22:3, Acts 5:34) was certainly there.
I skimmed the video but did not see any references to Acts. You gotta see this. Acts itself is in part an apologetic document defending the ministry of Paul written by a traveling companion of Paul who knew him closely. >> Most striking of all, Luke has drawn out an extended series of parallels between the ministry of Peter, whose apostolic status was never seriously questioned in the ancient Church, and the ministry of Paul: • Both deliver inaugural sermons to Israel focusing on the Davidic covenant (2:22-36; 13:26-41). • Both appeal to Psalm 16 to explain the Resurrection of Jesus (2:25-28; 13:35). • Both have the power to heal cripples (3:1-10; 14:8-10). • Both are filled with the Holy Spirit (4:8; 13:9). • Both are renowned for extraordinary miracles (5:15-16; 19:11-12). • Both confer the Spirit by the laying on of hands (8:14-17; 19:6). • Both confront and rebuke magicians (8:18-24; 13:6-11). • Both raise the dead to new life (9:36-41; 20:9-12). • Both refuse to accept divine worship (10:25-26; 14:11-15). • Both are miraculously delivered from prison (12:6-11; 16:25-34). These parallels announce to the careful reader that the power at work in Peter is also at work in Paul, that the preaching of Peter is also the preaching of Paul, and that the protection given to Peter by God is likewise given to Paul. Together they show that Paul is equally approved by God and has all the credentials of a true apostle of Christ (1 Cor 9:1; 2 Cor 12:12). « The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 204.
Hey Nietzsche, if you say "hatred" enough when talking about Paul, it will prove that Paul was hateful. Not, of course, that you have any resentment towards Christianity.
The key here is noticing that the same people rejecting Paul's teachings also reject the rest of the Bible as well. A person can only think Paul "hijacked" Christianity if that person does not really understand Christianity. For those striving to live a Christian life, Paul's teachings are clearly in accord with the Gospels and the other writings of the apostles.
Very good breakdown. I think a lot of the compulsion to invalidate Paul and separate him from Jesus comes from lack of knowledge of Paul. Paul's writings have long been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misused to say things Paul never believed or intended to say. You can't take Paul based on modern biases and a surface level reading of his writings. You must understand the context, audience, and language of his time. Read the Bible on its own terms, not yours. Good understanding of the text requires more than reading it cover to cover as if it is a novel.
A lot of it seems to be coming from the modern equivalent of the "Judaizers", those who wanted to try to make Christians follow the Jewish ceremonial laws. The Devil's basic attack is always "did God really say....?"
Paul also said that Moses received the law via angels Gal 3:19 when we all know Moses spoke directly to God , he also claims to have had revelations and visions yet he was not a prophet 2 corinthians 12:1 . Paul is 100% a liar
@@Gilaffa137 Galatians 3:19 "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary." If you WANT to take it as Paul not understanding how Moses received the law, then sure; I suppose you could read it that way. But, that's forcing your own clear dislike of Paul into the text to try and justify your feelings. There are several theories as to Paul's intent here, but you can find them for yourself, I have no doubt. The reality is that "angel" in the Bible can mean many things and does not necessarily mean heavenly beings. In fact, anybody bringing the word of God is an angel linguistically. Regardless, it's a pretty obscure line by Paul that could mean a lot of things and you're just reading in your own eisegesiss.
It's kinda weird that modern skeptics all hate on Paul and say he corrupted the teachings of Jesus but if that were the case you'd think Peter would have said something. Or at least not gone and founded the church in Rome with the guy. You'd think the other 9 Apostles would've taken a similar stand against Paul. Or that at least one of the church's early writings would say this. Or that Paul's writings would somehow contradict the gospels instead of affirming and clarifying them. But these people 2000 years later probably knew Paul better than they did...
It's really just a lack of knowledge and hatred of Christianity. Jesus and Paul didn't serve the same roles, and no one should expect them to be the same in every way. Jesus is the King who established the kingdom and who went first to the Jews. Paul helped spread the kingdom and through divine revelation wrote many of the principles that would guide the churches. If anyone can't take time to read or be open to the idea that they're ignorant of what the bible says concerning Paul, then they just want to bash Christianity without reason.
Also, we have to remember that Jesus was primarily teaching His disciples, not us, and was teaching them _before_ His death and resurrection and especially before Pentecost. Paul was working after Pentecost, during the establishment of the Church, and dealing with problems and issues that Jesus - working primarily among the Jews - simply did not.
Paul also said that Moses received the law via angels Gal 3:19 when we all know Moses spoke directly to God , he also claims to have had revelations and visions yet he was not a prophet 2 corinthians 12:1 . Paul is 100% a liar
@@Gilaffa137 What does "Angel" mean? "Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. " Exodus 3:1-2 Now for the trick question: who was the "Angel of the Lord" who spoke to Moses? Don't call people liars until you truly understand what they're saying. Besides, you're prooftexting and ignoring the surrounding context.
I've found zero evidence anywhere that Paul did any such thing. No evidence of a massive shift in doctrine, no warnings against his religious espionage, nothing. In fact, the Bible is honest that Christians didn't trust him at first, then later accepted him. Also, Peter affirms that he's a true Apostle in his epistle and even says his teachings are hard to understand. Throwing a littttttle shade, but recognizing he's one of them. All i see from the earliest Church history and saints is a resounding affirmation of Paul and all of his writings. The only reason people make this claim is because they ASSUME Paul is the only one claiming Jesus is God and that he's telling people that the Law is no longer relevant and people can just sin. 2 easily disprovable claims just from simply reading the Bible. Jews and Muslims love to hate on Paul but never provide evidence of his crimes.
Paul also said that Moses received the law via angels Gal 3:19 when we all know Moses spoke directly to God , he also claims to have had revelations and visions yet he was not a prophet 2 corinthians 12:1 . Paul is 100% a liar
@@Gilaffa137first, Paul said that Moses was ordained by angels. He never said that Moses received visions from angel.( being ordained means being given authority to act as a priest) God Commanded the angels to ordain Moses. Second, you do not need to be a prophet to receive Visions Neither Mary or Joseph were prophets but they received visions
"That dog don't hunt" is an expression that deserves to be used far more often in casual conversation. I went through my own brief period of exploring this train of thought. Thank goodness I never truly bought into it. I can see how this idea might have a superficial appeal if you don't understand the fact that the letters of Paul and most of the Gospels were being written to culturally different audiences, but it really isn't all too difficult to debunk with some basic logical inference upon closer inspection. It would've been one thing if the only New Testament scripture we had was written by Paul or by his close friends and travel companions. At least then we can make an arguement that he and his entourage found a way to control the narrative, but we also have other apostles who either directly mention Paul by name or indirectly do so by referencing the same teachings, and none of them express any form of hostility or suspicion about what Paul is saying or doing. I have a hard time believing that Jesus' original crew would be capable of getting hoodwinked by a persecutor of their own community who thought he could get away with twisting their message. You'd have better luck selling that theory convincingly if Paul wasn't approaching Jesus' personal disciples for scrutiny of his work, and you'd have to conclude that the apostles don't know their own message very well to believe that. If the apostles say that Paul is on the level, I'm inclined to take their word for it. Paul hijacking Christianity to take it in his own direction also doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you consider why he was persecuting them in the first place. If Paul was a snake in the grass, he'd be trying to maneuver the Jesus movement back toward rabbinic Judaism, but based on his letters and what he had to say at the first council at Jerusalem, Paul was on the anti-Judaizer side of the debate.
Do you think Jesus wholeheartedly agrees with Paul when he says In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul wrote: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."? For someone who wanted even little children to come to him, it's hard to hear Jesus endorsing such a thing.
Paul also said that Moses received the law via angels Gal 3:19 when we all know Moses spoke directly to God , he also claims to have had revelations and visions yet he was not a prophet 2 corinthians 12:1 . Paul is 100% a liar
@@Gilaffa137You are the liar. Hebrews says that. Stephen says that. Other Jews of that period said that. Its 100% inspired fact. Jewish historian Josephus in his writing Antiquities (Book 15, Ch. 5:3), when he quotes King Herod who said, “…we have learned from God the most excellent of our doctrines, and the most holy part of our law, by angels.” This apparently reflected the traditional Jewish thinking of those times. And the TORAH explicitly says that. Deut 33:2 "And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of holy ones: from his right hand went a fiery law for them." This is describing when Moses received the Ten Commandments from God on Mt. Sinai. When it says, “and he (God) came with ten thousands of holy ones” the Hebrew word qodesh is used for “holy ones” (most versions apart from the KJV use “holy ones” instead of “saints”). Qodesh simply means “a sacred place or thing” (Strong’s). Obviously, this can refer to many things (including “angels or saints”). Here, they are angels. Truth is in the details, sir.
@@Gilaffa137Note: It should also be noted that the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, used the word “angels” in place of “saints” when translating (Deut 33:2). Septuagint Translation: 2 And he said, The Lord is come from Sina, and has appeared from Seir to us, and has hasted out of the mount of Pharan, with the ten thousands of *Cades; on his right hand were his angels with him.
@@Gilaffa137Psalm 68:17 also mentions the attendance of angels on this occasion: “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of thousands; the LORD is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place.” The chariots of God, to put it in human terms, refer to angels being the chariots' drivers, manning the vehicles of God's military might.
@@Gilaffa137 Other ancient Jewish sources witness the fact that angels accompanied God and played a role in giving the Torah to Moses. (You may remember Apostle John in Revelation- Lord Jesus Himself is telling him what to write- At the same time , John says this revelation came through an angel sent by Jesus.) Pesikta Rabbasi 21 תרתין רבון דאלפי שנאן דמלאכין ירדו עם הקדוש ברוך הוא על הר סיני ליתן תורה לישראל Two hundred million angels came down with the Holy One, blessed is He, on Mount Sinai to give the Jews the Torah. ולמה ירדו ר' חייא בר רבא לכבודה של תורה ור' חייא בר יוסי אמר לכבודם של ישראל Why did the angels come down? Rabbi Chiya the son of Rava says for the honor of the Torah. Rabbi Chiya the son of Yossi says for the honor of the Jews. These are just for knowledge that the Jews believed this to be a fact cause it was there in the TORAH. Why does Hebrews start with angel criticism , because the Jews respected even worshipped angels.
You cited many good examples of correspondence between Paul's teachings and those of Jesus. However, I would love to see a video that specifically deals with apparent differences in salvation theology - the theology that Paul expounds in Romans (salvation through faith in Jesus) versus things Jesus said about salvation in Matthew 25 and in Luke 10, which seem to be saying that salvation is secured by how you treat others.
I see many videos this days where people try to prove that Paul is false( their objections are stupid and proves that video authors don't know bible at all) even Christians are saying that Paul contradicts gospels and he is confusing, but i dont understand how does Paul's letters contradict gospels at all. they misunderstand and blame on Paul😂. when i started reading Paul's letters i was in shock i was asking myself who is this genius, is he even a human? 😂 i wish to be persecuted for Christ like Paul was and Love my Lord like he did. he is my favourite apostle too.
1)God can be referred to as "Abba" (Romans 8:15, Galatians 6:4 // Mark 14:36 2) We are to give to God what belongs to God ( Romans 12:1-2// mark 12:17). 3)We are to bless those who do wrong to us and love our enemies (Romans 12:14, 19:21// luke 6:27-28, Matthew 5:44). 4) we are to live peaceably with all people (Romans 12:18// Mark 9:50) 5) love fullfills the law (Romans 13:8// Mark 12:28-33) 6) we must remain alert for the second coming (Romans 13:11-14// Luke 21:28, 31:34) 7) we are not to judge others (Romans 14:1-13// Matthew 7:1) 8) Salva is offered to gentil (Romans 15:8-9// Matthew 8:11). 9) we are to be wise as to good and simple to evil (Romans 16:19// Matthew 10/16). 10) Kingdom is offered for the low status in the world (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16// Luke 10:21-24) 11) ungodly people seek for a sign (1 cor 1:20-25// Luke 11:29-32) 12) the Gospel will offend many (1 Corinthians 1:23// Matthew 11:6) 13) we are called to be trustworthy stewart who will be judged by our master (1 Corinthians 4:1-5// luke 12:41-46). 14) we are to expect mistreatment in Kingdom work ( 1 Corinthians 4:12-14// Luke 6:22-23) 15) remaining single requires special Gift from God (1 Corinthians7:7 Matthew 19:12). 16) we are called to suffer and serve and not to be served (1 Corinthians 9:19, 10:33, phil 1:27-2:11, mark 10:45// 1 Corinthians 11:1) 17) Faith can move mountains (1 Corinthians 13:3// Matthew 17:20) 18) our earthly trmple is made with hand but we shall inherit temple not made wirh hands(2 Corinthians 5:1, Mark 14:50). 19) Kingdom is accompanied with signs and wonders (2 Corinthians 12:12// Mark 6;7) 20) Knowledge of Lord Jesus' indentity comes from divine revelation ( Galatians 1:1,12-16, Matthew 16:16-17). 21) whosever rejects God's message reject God ( 2 Thessalonians 4:8// Luke 10:16) 22) we must return evil with good ( 1 Thessalonians 5:16, Romans 12:17// Matthew 5:39-4, Luke 6:29) 23) cataclysmic events will provide the second coming ( 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Mark 13).
It might, if Peter actually wrote it. If you believe that, fine. But if you want to think about it, what evidence do you have that he did? People who disagree with you have a wealth of evidence that he didn't.
@@truncated7644 What's not to believe? 1. It exists 2. It has always been attributed to Peter 3. It's in the Bible, which is the Word of God. Done. You're actually going to side with "scholars" who are not only atheist but also hostile towards Christianity and Jesus AND 2000+ years later? You can if you want to...but there is a ton of evidence not to.
@@3luckydog if you are going to put "scholars" in scare quotes, I don't think you are open to anything I could tell you. And I think you agree with me that you have no idea who wrote Hebrews. On the other hand, I would be very interested in what you have to say about Peter 1 and 2 being written by Peter.
@@truncated7644 no, I don't agree with you. Paul wrote Hebrews. You're making the claim against 1 and 2 Peter, what do you have to say? As for my use of "scholars" ...it is referring to those who are hostile and willfully untruthful to the very subject matter they have dedicated their lives too. As far as I am concerned they have flushed their own credentials down the toilet. From those "scholars" we get the idiotic Q theory and assertions like we don't know who wrote Hebrews, Peter etc.. It's just Jesus hating, Marxists Communists doing the very thing they stated they would which is to kill God and the Bible.
Great points about what Paul says that is the same in the gospels. The problem is the places where Paul contradicts, not where he agrees. Just like the snake in the garden said truth mixed with false. We were warned against the false prophet, the “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. He will look like a sheep. You must look beyond the surface appearance and see the differences. Even the Tares look just like wheat at first. AND Yeshua said the tares would come right after the good seed. I know exactly who the tare is. It is Paul.
What I see is basically: Jesus tells people that mosaic legalism is outmoded by his new covenant. Paul says: definitely true but you still can’t go around sinning. Sexual morality still exists. People like Nietzsche “Paul made the message about HATE BECAUSE HE WORSHIPS HATE”
Good video, but I think that Paul-bashing tends to be a bit passé nowadays -- the much more likely go-to person to go to when you want someone to blame for all the ills of Christianity is Constantine. 😆
Hijacking a religion doesn’t necessarily mean making it all about you, Paul was an esoteric Jew, a Pharisee, the idea of incarceration, deifying a man can be seen in all religions that were corrupted by esotericism and pharisees were one of them they believed in astrology, magic, deifying oneself etc all of that is in the talmud today As a muslim I can think of many examples that happened within islam al durzi made Druze religion by deifying the alHakim biAmrillah, ibn Nusayr made Alawism and Ibn Saba made early Twelver Shiism both by deifying Ali ibn Abi Talib, and the last two contradict all what Ali preached All of these deified people other than themselves Paul made the same thing with Jesus and switched the whole message of Jesus, he abolished the law when Jesus said he came to fulfill it not to destroy it, he said Jesus is God even tho Jesus himself never said he is God and said that he is a man only sent by God It is a pattern that you will find in almost all religion
I wouldn't say hijack but his letters make it clear there were disagreements and he was in opposition of other views including the so called super apostles
Hello! a question, have you read the book Rethinking New Testament Dates: Evidence of Early Composition ? I find a very interesting book if you have read it, what do you think? a greeting! : D
A video on where their teachings coincide isn't convincing. We need a video of their teachings that differ. I'm having a hard time determining if I should take Paul's teachings as inerrant, or look at them as the teachings of an early church father that was prominent but fallible.
I'd say you should never view any man as infallible. (Except Christ in his human form) Even the Catholic and Orthodox Christians, though they honor/venerate the saints, know that the Church Fathers differed on different positions, explanations, and also weren't perfect. (Though Catholics drop the ball on papal infallibility, I admit) Whatever good came from these saints was always accredited to Christ in them though. They were extremely humble and brilliant men, but they knew their own weaknesses and limitations as well. We always need to take everything we read from fellow Christians with a grain of salt. Even Peter says Paul's teachings are difficult to understand, but he never discredits Paul altogether. So even in this instance, we see a small criticism of Paul, showing him to be clearly fallible, but not altogether wrong. As long as we can all agree that Jesus is the Son of God that died for our sins and gave us the Holy Spirit, we agree on the foundation of Christianity. As for small details and non-salvific theological differences, the reason these even exist is because men are still fallible due to the flesh. Paul has some of the most beautiful, complex and profound teachings in his letters. Just from this alone, you can sense that he's operating from a very high spiritual level. Whatever jives with Jesus' teachings is perfect Truth, whatever doesn't may have slipped in through the flesh or due to ignorance.
Paul took his message to those who witnessed Jesus live, die, & rise from the dead and they couldn't find anything wrong with what he was saying (Gal 2 : 1 - 10). God had set up the apostles to be the ultimate testers of what was from God and what wasn't since they were witnesses to what Jesus did and they were prophets of God who spoke what God told them to say. Paul even challenged his fellow prophets to recognize what he was teaching the churches was the Lord's command, and that if they did not recognize what he wrote then they should not be recognized. (1 Cor 14 : 36 - 38) In one of Peter's letters he tells his readers that Paul's writings are Scriptures. "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as *our dear brother Paul* also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. *He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,* as they do *the other Scriptures,* to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3 : 15 - 16)
@@TestifyApologetics Here's some: 1. Matt 7:21-23 Not everyone who says to me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. But Paul mis-quotes the OT: Romans 10:13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. 2. Matt 5:7 Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy Romans 9:18 God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy This is again against only believe and be saved because it’s the merciful who will be shown mercy, not those who believe only. 3. Matt 5:17-20 Do not think I’ve come to abolish the Law or the Prophets…but to fulfill them…until heaven and earth pass away, not the least jot or tittle will by any means disappear from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven…unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees…you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. This is similar to Paul’s purposeful mis-quote of Deut 30:14 in Romans 10:8 where he leaves out “that you may do it” and instead inserts “the word of faith”. 4. Mark 10:6-9 But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. There is a sacred expectation to get married. The purpose of creating male and female was for marriage. Marriage is sacred. 1 Cor 7:7-8 I wish all of you were as I am…To the widows and unmarried it is good for them to stay unmarried as I do. Paul clearly doesn’t think highly of marriage, although he tolerates it. 5. Matt 5:44 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! Invoking curses is the opposite of turning the other cheek. 6. John 20:17 Go instead to my brothers and tell them “I am ascending to my Father” 1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. Jesus entrusted women to speak. Where did Jesus show any indication that women should be quiet?
1. Matt 7:21-23 Not everyone who says to me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. But Paul mis-quotes the OT: Romans 10:13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Paul also says those who practice evil will not enter into the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21. For Paul salvation is becoming a new creation in Christ. It is your new nature that allows you to walk in obedience to Christ. See Galatians 5:22-26. He doesn't misquote the OT, although he did put his own editorial spin on it at times, much like the rabbis of the time did. Read them, they get much more creative than Paul does. Also, Peter reportedly quotes the same passage on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. You know, Peter...Jesus' right hand man. 2. Matt 5:7 Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy Romans 9:18 God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy This is again against only believe and be saved because it’s the merciful who will be shown mercy, not those who believe only. Paul says the unforgiving are among the condemned and that we must show mercy because God has shown mercy to us. (2 Tim 3.3, Eph 4:32, Ro. 2:1-4.) Paul is talking about election in Romans 11, just as Jesus does in John 6.37-40. 3. Matt 5:17-20 Do not think I’ve come to abolish the Law or the Prophets…but to fulfill them…until heaven and earth pass away, not the least jot or tittle will by any means disappear from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven…unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees…you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast. Paul was a torah observant Jew. We also see this throughout Acts. * “Brothers, I am [present tense] a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (Acts 23:6 ESV; see Acts 26:5). * “But this I admit to you . . . I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets. . . . I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people” (Acts 24:14, 16 NRSV). * “I have in no way committed an offense against the law of the Jews, or against the temple, or against the emperor” (Acts 25:8 NRSV). * “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our ancestors, yet I was arrested in Jerusalem” (Acts 28:17 NRSV). If you want to say that the author of Acts is lying here, I have provided abundant evidence in other videos that the author of Acts traveled with Paul and was familiar with him. The author also depicts him as taking a nazarite vow in Acts 18:18. Plus, we see this in his writing, particularly 1 Cor 7:7-20. In v 17 Paul emphasizes that those who are circumcised, representing Jewish identity and lifestyle, should maintain their Jewish heritage and not assimilate into other cultures. This principle applies universally in all of Paul's congregations. The term "circumcision" symbolizes a comprehensive commitment to the covenant, encompassing an entire way of life for the Jewish people. Paul connects circumcision with adherence to the law in Romans 2:25 and Galatians 5:3, asserting that its value lies in obedience to the law. If the law is broken, circumcision loses its significance. Like Jesus, he sees love as fulfilling the law (Matthew 22:37-40, Galatians 5:6-13, Romans 13:8-10) The unique wording in 1 Corinthians 7:18 - "Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision" - reflects a Greek idiom harking back to the Maccabean era when some Hellenistic Jews rejected their identity, even resorting to surgical alterations. Paul is saying DO NOT do that. 4. Mark 10:6-9 But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. There is a sacred expectation to get married. The purpose of creating male and female was for marriage. Marriage is sacred. 1 Cor 7:7-8 I wish all of you were as I am…To the widows and unmarried it is good for them to stay unmarried as I do. Paul clearly doesn’t think highly of marriage, although he tolerates it. This is is a real whopper of a mistake here. Jesus and Paul agree: In Matthew 19:4-6 we have the same saying. Then in Matthew 19:12 it says. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others-and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Paul is not saying everyone should be celebate no more than Jesus. He encourages married people to get married and gives instructions in Ephesians 5:21-33 how married couples should treat one another. I have multiple videos demonstrating that Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and the Pastorals are not forgeries, btw. So don't go there without reviewing them first. 5. Matt 5:44 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! Invoking curses is the opposite of turning the other cheek. You clearly have not read Paul very well at all. Honestly, this is a bit embarrassing. Jesus had very harsh words for false teachers himself, just see Matthew 23. Also, see Romans 12. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. This is very similar to Jesus' words from the Sermon on the Mount, and some scholars believe he is drawing from Jesus' words in some form of oral tradition, as he does elsewhere. (See 1 Corinthians 11 regarding the Eucharist, or 1 Thess 4:15 regarding the second coming) 6. John 20:17 Go instead to my brothers and tell them “I am ascending to my Father” 1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. Jesus entrusted women to speak. Where did Jesus show any indication that women should be quiet? This is really poor exegesis. I'm sorry, I can't sugarcoat it. Paul gives instructions under what conditions women my prophesy in 1 Cor. 11:5. Paul commends Phoebe, a female deacon. He mentions like half a dozen other women in Romans 16, including Prisca, who is depicted in Acts as instructing Apollos in the ways of the Lord (Acts 18:24-28) He says she risked her neck for Christ. Furthermore, Junia is also mentioned. Paul praises Junia as a prominent apostle who had been imprisoned for her labor. Junia is named as a female apostle. While there is debate around her identity and people want to turn her into a man, most scholars agree it's a female name. Others want to nitpick if she was an apostle or not, but regardless she was listed as being a prominent woman who was serving the cause of Christ. I'm sorry man, but this is really weak. You need to read up on the NT before spouting off in some comment section. If Paul was preaching a different Gospel than Jesus, then why did he receive the right hand of fellowship from Peter, James and John? (Galatians 2:9) You should get your understanding of Paul from Paul himself, reading him more closely, not from watching Kristi Burke and Tovia Singer on TH-cam.
@@TestifyApologetics 1. It's a mis-quote because the author had no intention of that verse meaning only call upon the Lord and you will be saved. It's out of context. And Paul may say, as in 1Cor 6:9-10, that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, but let's face it, most (though definitely not all) of the interpretations by Protestants that only calling upon Jesus as Lord saves you comes from Paul's writings. And certainly it did NOT come from Jesus' sayings. Therefore, Paul was a bad teacher of Jesus. Being given his knowledge by revelation from Jesus, one would expect he would write in such a way as to not even come across as contradictory, instead of relying on them reading letters to OTHER regions to get the full context. 3. I don't deny Paul acted according to 1Cor 9:20-22: "unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law." A veritable two-facer. But circumcision, regardless of how Paul defines it, IS PHYSICAL as clearly commanded explicitly in many verses of the OT. Saying the Gentiles can count being under "the law of Christ" as circumcision is flat-out WRONG! 4. It's clear Paul doesn't view marriage highly, but as acceptable, but that ideally everyone isn't married. It's a mockery to say that. It's not nearly as mocking to acknowledge that some cannot get married, but to say being unmarried is SUPERIOR is not what Jesus meant...or if it is, then Jesus is mocking God or His own creation. 5. While Paul reiterates Jesus' teachings on forgiveness, he also says you should curse disbelievers, which is contrary to Jesus' teachings. (Though not contrary to Yahweh's teachings...that evil one). 6. Would Jesus have commanded the women to be quiet in the same context as Paul did? I guess debatable, but I hope not. Is women being quiet in the same context still practiced by Christians today? I guess so for Catholic priests who give the sermons. Tovia Singer is awesome. You did not respond to the clear mis-quote of replacing "that you may do it" with "word of faith"
Paul was a Herod working for Rome. Paul even tells on himself being relatived in Rom16. The Herods were not jews but they infiltrated every powerful movement in Judah. This is why John keeps calling Paul “Balaam” and “antichrist”. Paul snuck in to teach disobedience to god, but obedience to Rome. The real apostles eventually found out about Paul. In particular James and John. The whole book of James is written directly against Paul’s false teachings.
This scripture is made even more real ”and reckon the patience of our Master as deliverance, as also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these matters, in which some are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the other Scriptures.“ Kĕpha Bĕt (2 Peter) 3:15-16 TS2009
@7:07 you are incorrect he told them to collect money on sunday which is not day of the week. Sabbath is Saturday. You and I and the catholic or Protestant churches don't have the right to change the Holy Sabbath of the Lord. Sabbath day 1) God Rested on the Sabbath day (genisis 2:3, Exodus 20:11) 2) Sanctified the Sabbath day (genisis 2:3) 3) God Blessed the Sabbath day (exodus 20:11) 4) Holy Day (Isaiah 58:13). God didn't rested on sunday, He rested on Sabbath Day (Saturday). You can't push God to rest on sunday, you can't change God's resting Day in Genisis. Now circumcision was for the Jews, who were under the promise given to Abharam. Where as Sabbath was for man(mark2:27) not just for Jews, Sabbath was even before fall of Adam and Eve. God Blessed the Sabbath Day in genisis 2:3. CIRCUMCISION CAME WITH ABHARAM, SABBATH CAME BEFORE THE FALL OF ADAM AND EVE. SABBATH came before there was sin in the World. You follow your sabbath and I'll follow THE LORD'S SABBATH.
Anybody who says Paul hijacked christianity is calling Jesus a liar, saying that the gates of hell would not stand against the Church, but with corrupted scriptures in 1st century.
So the theory is that the guy who used to be a notorious persecutor of the church, and therefore had zero credibility from the get go, giving the church every reason to be skeptical about his testimony and to be very critical of his teachings if they departed from what was traditionally accepted, somehow managed to fool everyone into accepting him, and then started preaching a message contrary to the 12 apostles whose witness both quantitatively and qualitatively surpasses that of Paul.... i thought skeptics believed extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence xD cuz that theory sounds as miraculous as anything to me
I would be really interested in a much deeper dive into this and maybe even a discussion/debate with the alternative views. I've been researching this for a while and my personal bias wants me to hold on to Paul's letters at Scripture, but there are some valid points from the other side. The most levelheaded argument I've heard from the other side starts with Paul being deceived, not hijacking intentionally. Saul was spiritually vulnerable and did not have John's instruction to test every Spirit to see if it was from God. What criteria validates Paul's vision but disqualifies Muhammad and Joseph Smith's visions as being deceitful spirits?
Followers of Joseph Smith admitted he made it all up, so I'm not sure why we are even talking about this? The point is that Paul was well within the same belief system and taught the same gospel the apostles had already received. He was firmly grounded in the scriptures and was a pharisee. BTW Jesus was himself very likely a pharisee because the title rabbi was at the time only used for and by pharisees. And after his vision he later met the other apostles to confirm what he taught was in line with proper doctrine.
@@MrSeedi76 I've never heard of a Mormon who doesn't believe Joseph Smith's vision and subsequent message were from God. Muslims all believe Muhammad received a message from God. Followers of Paul believe Paul that Jesus appeared to him without any witnesses to verify. I've noticed lately with more people questioning Paul how many will defend him like he's equal with Jesus and refuse to even question him and it reminds me of Mormons defending Joseph Smith. It's had me looking at Paul differently.
Also the couple verses where Peter seems to approve of Paul's message are followed by him warning about how they're going to be used to practice lawlessness.
I've see some non-believers get the anti-Paul influence and then they see where Paul doesn't suffer a woman to speak. These 25 points help with the first part of their objections, and hopefully that opens their mind to the second thing they object to, but basically anti-Christians will see this as a huge contradiction from what Jesus taught. I'm not trying to derail all the good work you did in this video. I just want my friends Saved and to figure out if I can change their mind on some of the issue they take with these "misogynistic" or "sexist" bible verse(s) from Paul / others whatever.
I've read Shalom Ben-Chorin's book about Paul. As a Jewish scholar he sheds so much light on the difficult parts in Paul's letters. And he wrote that this commandment was probably to stop the constant talking during sermon. He mentioned, one need only look at the women section in a synagogue to know why Paul wrote that 😂. And in other places, Paul mentions that a woman should wear something on her head when speaking prophesy, so he obviously did suffer women to speak in the assembly.
I noticed in Acts 13:25, Luke quotes Paul’s sermon in which Paul quoted John the baptist, and it appears Paul used a form of John’s saying that most closely resembles the Gospel of John, not the Synoptics, including Luke. This suggests to me that Luke wasn’t refashioning Paul’s sermon however he liked, but faithfully reported it, since it is clearly different from Luke’s own rendering of John the baptist’s speech in Luke’s Gospel. This also implies that Paul was familiar with Jesus’ teachings independent of the source for Luke. [25] And as John was finishing his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but behold, after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’
The Jesus described in John is clearly closer to Paul's message than the Jesus of Mark's gospel. Moreover, I noticed you ignored many of the glaring differences between the two. Fundamentally, the two differed on the state of man. Jesus taught that people are not good or bad, but what comes out of them defines them. People meet God's message by what comes out of them (their works). Paul feels all humans are bad and undeserving. The only way to be saved is to define Jesus as god and then the grace from god will be what redeems a person. There are so many, equally contradictory, differences that it does make a person sit back and wonder. Jesus says we are all equal under God and Jesus is simply a messenger. Paul builds all sorts of hierarchies among people (with himself on the highest level among humans.) It is also noteworthy that Paul did not learn humility. Reread Mark's gospel and look at how Jesus talks about himself (note: seldom and when it happens, it is with humility). Now read the epistles of Paul. Paul is boastful, demanding of support, and cursing people who he does not like. Yes, they are clearly different people, and I accept that argument. But if a significant portion of the message Jesus taught is humility, Paul missed the mark. Consider the probability: Paul, a young pharisee from asia minor, moves to Jerusalem. He implies he is important (as if he had a voting position in the Sanhedrin), but seems to never be more than the council's step-n-fetch lackey. The pharisees believed in many of the ideas we believe (today) to be foundational to christianity, including immortality of the soul and bodily resurrection after death (unlike the Sadducees). Paul clearly tried to rise and be important in the Jewish religious council and failed. After capturing/killing yet another christian, he realizes he has a better chance of rising in power in this new cult than he does in the Sanhedrin. All he has to do is claim Jesus spoke to him and miracle or miracles, converted him from being a pharisee to a christian. Paul then takes off and leaves the area for three years (Arabia) so he could come back claiming to be personally appointed by Jesus to be a disciple. From there, he returns to the lands of his youth (asia minor) and opens "christian churches" where he can be seen as the leader. He continues to preach the pharisee beliefs of the immortality of the soul. He demands to be raised up and recognized as important, even demanding financial support from churches in Rome he did not create. (Interestingly, the didache states that if a prophet asks for money, they are a false prophet.) I find this line of reasoning more plausible than Paul was converted and learned about christianity from Jesus during his three years in Arabia. After reading each 'book' on its own merits without letting the stories from other books to cloud the image the book is teaching, the Jesus of Mark's gospel would not approve of the Paul described in any of Paul's epistles, both the ones scholars feel was written by Paul and the ones regarded as not.
By who exactly? I've read works of top new testament critics such as Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman and they don't seem to go after Paul too much (At least not the same way Muslims do). They are critical of some of the things Paul says and point out that Paul disagreed with the apostles on some things but they don't claim Paul completely hijacked Christianity or made up an entirely new religion the polar opposite of everything Jesus taught.
Real apostle of jesus was beheaded by paul Paul is bountry hunter of christan Even luke said paul is enemy And yet you believe Paul write new testament 😂😂😂 Paul write about his dream and hear voices from bush 😂
Every time someone says things like this about Paul it reminds me of 2 Peter 3.169, "...[Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
Guy lands a plane after several wild events, a voice helps him land the plane, you want the guy arrested for highjacking the plane for listening to the Voice from the Tower.
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16 Anyone who is rejecting Paul should read this.
The Gospel will offend many. Only one Gospel: The Gospel of Reconciliation. Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself. We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness. If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever. Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
I feel so sad for Paul. People should stop speculating about Paul starting Christianity and try to understand that Christianity is ALL bout following JESUS CHRIST. Infact, 9 out of 10 Christian who are converted to Christianity vome to the saving Grace of JESUS through the Testimony of The Gospels and NOT the letters of Paul. ♥️🤗🙏✝️👍♥️
boss just go compare Psalms 2:12 in your bible and compare it to the original jewish tenach , is it ''honor the son'' or '' arm yourself with purity'' then come back to me and tell me your bible is not corrupted.
@@danielbelteshazzar-mg7rb so which is corrupted the christian bible or jewish tenach Psalms 2:12? very easy simple question, you have the internet right ?
Paul is arguably the second most important figure in Christianity. No one else did more to spread the word in those early years. So much so that writings were forged in his name for credibility. His writings date earlier than any of the gospels in the bible. He and Peter may or may not have gotten along, but Peter recognizes him as a central figure in those days. I'm not saying he hijacked Christianity, but he influenced it more than anyone else. The gospels were largely oral when Paul wrote his letters, and it's impossible to know for certain that his ideas didn't influence the synoptic gospels. John is marching to his own drummer and consequences be damned. The question is, Is Paul the chicken or the egg for a ton of Christian theology.
There is a big question mark behind the gospels being "mainly oral" at the time. In all the time studying theology (where this was consensus) I never came across a really good argument why there should have been a long oral tradition over decades before anything was written down. Judaism at the time was already a book religion. And more people could write than people are aware of. I know the arguments for an oral tradition but they are not convincing. Maybe for a rather short time but not over decades as if they first needed to invent writing. When Jesus himself read from the scroll of Isaiah and had a lot more followers than just the famous "illiterate fishermen". There is evidence for some of the material in the gospels being ordered by criteria that hint to at least a partial oral tradition but not nearly enough to claim that this tradition lasted over decades. And the evidence isn't at all clear that Paul's letters predate all gospels.
Of course Paul hijacked it, that is why Luke made a careful investigation, interviewing many people and came up with the same thing as those who were not discipled by Paul. Duh. 😂 The "skeptics" aren't really skeptical of their own views, are they.
It's hard to hijack something you create. So he didn't hijack Christianity. He hijacked one particular and obscure Jewish cult and turned it into something else.
Christianity existed as an already widespread institution before Paul even claimed to be Christian. There's no evidence to prove that Paul literally created Christianity.
Let's compare the gospel (good news) taught by Jesus with the gospel taught by Paul ================== >>> What is the gospel according to Jesus? *"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."* (John 3:16-17) Jesus said that anyone (Jew or Gentile) who believes/trusts in the Son will not perish but have eternal life. Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, *“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”* (John 6:28-29) Jesus said the work that God requires is to believe in the one He has sent. The one God has sent is Jesus, His Son. - - - - >>> What is the gospel according to Paul? *"Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.* *By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.* *For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that* *he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to* *more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he* *appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."* (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) Paul said his gospel is that Christ died for our sins, he was buried, he was raised from the dead, and he appeared to many after his resurrection. The gospel according to Paul is Jesus himself. *"Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel,"* (2 Timothy 2:8) Paul said his gospel is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and descended from David. Again, the gospel according to Paul is Jesus himself.
The fact that Paul quotes the gospels makes me believe the gospels were written way earlier that current dating.
Also, Peter calls Paul's writings scripture.
I definitely believe that the first 3 were written pre 62 AD at least.
Could you provide some examples? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just ignorant 😅
Especially Luke’s Gospel.
I’ve read through a lot of Paul but can’t find any direct quotations from the gospels. Can you include some examples?
How could Paul “hijack” Christianity when he was so universally distrusted by the Christian community after his conversion? “This is the man who persecuted Christians” was the refrain among the believers, for years after Paul believed in Christ. Paul is the _last_ person whom we could expect to have any luck in persuading his former victims to believe _him,_ and disbelieve either Jesus’ teachings or that of the Twelve.
As proof, Paul had to fight to convince people even of his apostleship, let alone his teachings (1 Cor. 9:1).
And he went up to Jerusalem to confer with first Peter and James (Gal.1:18-20), and later with all the apostles (Gal. 2:1-10).
Just to make sure he was preaching the true Gospel.
This whole notion of “hijacking” by Paul is impossible and incredible.
@@mkl2237 Thanks, bro! People who peddle this kind of thing don’t seem to know the NT very well, do they?
It also doesn't make much sense when you consider why he was persecuting them in the first place. If he was a snake in the grass, he'd be trying to maneuver them back toward rabbinic Judaism, but based on his letters and his comments at the first council at Jerusalem, Paul was very unambiguously on the anti-Judaizer side of that debate.
Paul is a false apostle
I will say the first time I read through the gospels I was really inspired and filled with hope by Jesus words. Then I read the epistles and it felt like I was burdened by rules and regulations. Over time I realized that the epistles really help give more practicality to the gospel in our daily lives.
Paul's letters can be very deep and require study of the entire book, not just the chapter to grasp their understanding. You will find people picking scriptures and making them "rules" to follow.
I find it good to read parts of the Old Testament, the Gospel and then Paul which all link together. Requires a study bible or guide.
Interesting. The gospels had the exact opposite impact on me.
I couldn’t even get through the sermon on the mount before feeling absolutely crushed by Jesus’ impossible standards:
Matthew 5:19-20,
“Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:21-22,
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”
Matthew 5:27-29,
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.”
Matthew 5:33-37,
“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”
Matthew 5:38-42,
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
Matthew 5:43-48,
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
They were written to other churches to settle matters and disputes.
The idea that Paul hijacked Christianity doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about it. His message doesnt change the Gospels, nor does it change the message of the other NT writers.
Also wouldn’t make sense either when you consider he was persecuting Christians, meaning he wanted nothing to do with them and viewed them as heretics… that is until Jesus revealed Himself to him on the road to Damascus. One could argue “well maybe Paul wanted to undermine the true Gospel by changing what happened”, yet everything he says agrees and supports the Gospel, like you’ve said.
It seems to me they taught contradictory gospel messages.
Agreed. Peter endorsed Paul's epistles in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
Even after Paul got right up in his lambchops for not eating with Gentiles in the presence of other Jews in Gal 2:11-12. Solid Pauline support.
@@LessThanZero-j6e2 "peter"
@@mjt532 he really didn't
"Paul is not inventing Christianity, he’s inheriting Christianity and he’s making sure that he’s being faithful to preach the same message.” -Testify [6:34 - 6:41]
Loved this comment! Very insightful and well-layered response. Thank you for the research and all the great content!
Paul also said that Moses received the law via angels Gal 3:19 when we all know Moses spoke directly to God , he also claims to have had revelations and visions yet he was not a prophet 2 corinthians 12:1 . Paul is 100% a liar
All Paul is guilty of was elevating christianity so it was more cohesive. What he did was to give practical wisdom to a church still growing and emerging from paganistic tendecies. The spirit of Jesus did well guiding Paul to the truth.
Well said.
@@colinsmith1288 Paul never met Jesus
@@Gilaffa137But does not Paul clarify what he meant in Galatians 3 verse 20. Granted Paul in not a prophet in the old testament sense but he was in the caregory of prophet tradition of the bible. I may for example have some theological knowledge of the bible but l am not a theologist.
Just as a note, although there's no definite proof, several scholars that I've run into believe that Saul was among the Pharisees that Jesus debated. His teacher Gamaliel (Acts 22:3, Acts 5:34) was certainly there.
He definitely must have been.
I skimmed the video but did not see any references to Acts. You gotta see this. Acts itself is in part an apologetic document defending the ministry of Paul written by a traveling companion of Paul who knew him closely.
>> Most striking of all, Luke has drawn out an extended series of parallels between the ministry of Peter, whose apostolic status was never seriously questioned in the ancient Church, and the ministry of Paul:
• Both deliver inaugural sermons to Israel focusing on the Davidic covenant (2:22-36; 13:26-41).
• Both appeal to Psalm 16 to explain the Resurrection of Jesus (2:25-28; 13:35).
• Both have the power to heal cripples (3:1-10; 14:8-10).
• Both are filled with the Holy Spirit (4:8; 13:9).
• Both are renowned for extraordinary miracles (5:15-16; 19:11-12).
• Both confer the Spirit by the laying on of hands (8:14-17; 19:6).
• Both confront and rebuke magicians (8:18-24; 13:6-11).
• Both raise the dead to new life (9:36-41; 20:9-12).
• Both refuse to accept divine worship (10:25-26; 14:11-15).
• Both are miraculously delivered from prison (12:6-11; 16:25-34).
These parallels announce to the careful reader that the power at work in Peter is also at work in Paul, that the preaching of Peter is also the preaching of Paul, and that the protection given to Peter by God is likewise given to Paul. Together they show that Paul is equally approved by God and has all the credentials of a true apostle of Christ (1 Cor 9:1; 2 Cor 12:12). «
The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 204.
Hey Nietzsche, if you say "hatred" enough when talking about Paul, it will prove that Paul was hateful. Not, of course, that you have any resentment towards Christianity.
The key here is noticing that the same people rejecting Paul's teachings also reject the rest of the Bible as well. A person can only think Paul "hijacked" Christianity if that person does not really understand Christianity. For those striving to live a Christian life, Paul's teachings are clearly in accord with the Gospels and the other writings of the apostles.
Very good breakdown. I think a lot of the compulsion to invalidate Paul and separate him from Jesus comes from lack of knowledge of Paul. Paul's writings have long been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misused to say things Paul never believed or intended to say.
You can't take Paul based on modern biases and a surface level reading of his writings. You must understand the context, audience, and language of his time. Read the Bible on its own terms, not yours. Good understanding of the text requires more than reading it cover to cover as if it is a novel.
Preach!
A lot of it seems to be coming from the modern equivalent of the "Judaizers", those who wanted to try to make Christians follow the Jewish ceremonial laws. The Devil's basic attack is always "did God really say....?"
Paul also said that Moses received the law via angels Gal 3:19 when we all know Moses spoke directly to God , he also claims to have had revelations and visions yet he was not a prophet 2 corinthians 12:1 . Paul is 100% a liar
@@Gilaffa137
Galatians 3:19 "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary."
If you WANT to take it as Paul not understanding how Moses received the law, then sure; I suppose you could read it that way. But, that's forcing your own clear dislike of Paul into the text to try and justify your feelings.
There are several theories as to Paul's intent here, but you can find them for yourself, I have no doubt. The reality is that "angel" in the Bible can mean many things and does not necessarily mean heavenly beings. In fact, anybody bringing the word of God is an angel linguistically.
Regardless, it's a pretty obscure line by Paul that could mean a lot of things and you're just reading in your own eisegesiss.
@@qb101 I don't know what translation you use go to other translations
Really liking the new content lately Erik. This format gets us straight to the facts and is super valuable.
It's kinda weird that modern skeptics all hate on Paul and say he corrupted the teachings of Jesus but if that were the case you'd think Peter would have said something. Or at least not gone and founded the church in Rome with the guy. You'd think the other 9 Apostles would've taken a similar stand against Paul. Or that at least one of the church's early writings would say this. Or that Paul's writings would somehow contradict the gospels instead of affirming and clarifying them.
But these people 2000 years later probably knew Paul better than they did...
It's really just a lack of knowledge and hatred of Christianity. Jesus and Paul didn't serve the same roles, and no one should expect them to be the same in every way. Jesus is the King who established the kingdom and who went first to the Jews. Paul helped spread the kingdom and through divine revelation wrote many of the principles that would guide the churches. If anyone can't take time to read or be open to the idea that they're ignorant of what the bible says concerning Paul, then they just want to bash Christianity without reason.
Sadly, that tends to be the usual tactic for some.
Also, we have to remember that Jesus was primarily teaching His disciples, not us, and was teaching them _before_ His death and resurrection and especially before Pentecost. Paul was working after Pentecost, during the establishment of the Church, and dealing with problems and issues that Jesus - working primarily among the Jews - simply did not.
Paul also said that Moses received the law via angels Gal 3:19 when we all know Moses spoke directly to God , he also claims to have had revelations and visions yet he was not a prophet 2 corinthians 12:1 . Paul is 100% a liar
@@Gilaffa137 What does "Angel" mean?
"Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. " Exodus 3:1-2
Now for the trick question: who was the "Angel of the Lord" who spoke to Moses?
Don't call people liars until you truly understand what they're saying.
Besides, you're prooftexting and ignoring the surrounding context.
@@Gilaffa137 Did Ananias lie about his vision in Acts 9?
I've found zero evidence anywhere that Paul did any such thing.
No evidence of a massive shift in doctrine, no warnings against his religious espionage, nothing.
In fact, the Bible is honest that Christians didn't trust him at first, then later accepted him.
Also, Peter affirms that he's a true Apostle in his epistle and even says his teachings are hard to understand.
Throwing a littttttle shade, but recognizing he's one of them.
All i see from the earliest Church history and saints is a resounding affirmation of Paul and all of his writings.
The only reason people make this claim is because they ASSUME Paul is the only one claiming Jesus is God and that he's telling people that the Law is no longer relevant and people can just sin.
2 easily disprovable claims just from simply reading the Bible.
Jews and Muslims love to hate on Paul but never provide evidence of his crimes.
Paul also said that Moses received the law via angels Gal 3:19 when we all know Moses spoke directly to God , he also claims to have had revelations and visions yet he was not a prophet 2 corinthians 12:1 . Paul is 100% a liar
@@Gilaffa137first, Paul said that Moses was ordained by angels. He never said that Moses received visions from angel.( being ordained means being given authority to act as a priest) God Commanded the angels to ordain Moses. Second, you do not need to be a prophet to receive Visions
Neither Mary or Joseph were prophets but they received visions
@@idikm NIV : The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. and in regards to 2nd point : and revelation?
@@Gilaffa137 oh you use NIV.
Well that explain everything
@@Gilaffa137 also visions and revelations are something that God gives us. There are no special conditions
"That dog don't hunt" is an expression that deserves to be used far more often in casual conversation.
I went through my own brief period of exploring this train of thought. Thank goodness I never truly bought into it. I can see how this idea might have a superficial appeal if you don't understand the fact that the letters of Paul and most of the Gospels were being written to culturally different audiences, but it really isn't all too difficult to debunk with some basic logical inference upon closer inspection. It would've been one thing if the only New Testament scripture we had was written by Paul or by his close friends and travel companions. At least then we can make an arguement that he and his entourage found a way to control the narrative, but we also have other apostles who either directly mention Paul by name or indirectly do so by referencing the same teachings, and none of them express any form of hostility or suspicion about what Paul is saying or doing. I have a hard time believing that Jesus' original crew would be capable of getting hoodwinked by a persecutor of their own community who thought he could get away with twisting their message. You'd have better luck selling that theory convincingly if Paul wasn't approaching Jesus' personal disciples for scrutiny of his work, and you'd have to conclude that the apostles don't know their own message very well to believe that. If the apostles say that Paul is on the level, I'm inclined to take their word for it.
Paul hijacking Christianity to take it in his own direction also doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you consider why he was persecuting them in the first place. If Paul was a snake in the grass, he'd be trying to maneuver the Jesus movement back toward rabbinic Judaism, but based on his letters and what he had to say at the first council at Jerusalem, Paul was on the anti-Judaizer side of the debate.
Do you think Jesus wholeheartedly agrees with Paul when he says In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul wrote: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."? For someone who wanted even little children to come to him, it's hard to hear Jesus endorsing such a thing.
The late Brother Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ are consistent. He didn't hijack anything. ✝️✝️❤️❤️
Paul also said that Moses received the law via angels Gal 3:19 when we all know Moses spoke directly to God , he also claims to have had revelations and visions yet he was not a prophet 2 corinthians 12:1 . Paul is 100% a liar
@@Gilaffa137You are the liar.
Hebrews says that.
Stephen says that.
Other Jews of that period said that.
Its 100% inspired fact.
Jewish historian Josephus in his writing Antiquities (Book 15, Ch. 5:3), when he quotes King Herod who said, “…we have learned from God the most excellent of our doctrines, and the most holy part of our law, by angels.” This apparently reflected the traditional Jewish thinking of those times.
And the TORAH explicitly says that.
Deut 33:2 "And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of holy ones: from his right hand went a fiery law for them."
This is describing when Moses received the Ten Commandments from God on Mt. Sinai. When it says, “and he (God) came with ten thousands of holy ones” the Hebrew word qodesh is used for “holy ones” (most versions apart from the KJV use “holy ones” instead of “saints”). Qodesh simply means “a sacred place or thing” (Strong’s). Obviously, this can refer to many things (including “angels or saints”).
Here, they are angels.
Truth is in the details, sir.
@@Gilaffa137Note: It should also be noted that the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, used the word “angels” in place of “saints” when translating (Deut 33:2).
Septuagint Translation:
2 And he said, The Lord is come from Sina, and has appeared from Seir to us, and has hasted out of the mount of Pharan, with the ten thousands of *Cades; on his right hand were his angels with him.
@@Gilaffa137Psalm 68:17 also mentions the attendance of angels on this occasion:
“The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of thousands; the LORD is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place.”
The chariots of God, to put it in human terms, refer to angels being the chariots' drivers, manning the vehicles of God's military might.
@@Gilaffa137
Other ancient Jewish sources witness the fact that angels accompanied God and played a role in giving the Torah to Moses.
(You may remember Apostle John in Revelation- Lord Jesus Himself is telling him what to write- At the same time , John says this revelation came through an angel sent by Jesus.)
Pesikta Rabbasi 21
תרתין רבון דאלפי שנאן דמלאכין ירדו עם הקדוש ברוך הוא על הר סיני ליתן תורה לישראל
Two hundred million angels came down with the Holy One, blessed is He, on Mount Sinai to give the Jews the Torah.
ולמה ירדו ר' חייא בר רבא לכבודה של תורה ור' חייא בר יוסי אמר לכבודם של ישראל
Why did the angels come down? Rabbi Chiya the son of Rava says for the honor of the Torah. Rabbi Chiya the son of Yossi says for the honor of the Jews.
These are just for knowledge that the Jews believed this to be a fact cause it was there in the TORAH.
Why does Hebrews start with angel criticism , because the Jews respected even worshipped angels.
You cited many good examples of correspondence between Paul's teachings and those of Jesus. However, I would love to see a video that specifically deals with apparent differences in salvation theology - the theology that Paul expounds in Romans (salvation through faith in Jesus) versus things Jesus said about salvation in Matthew 25 and in Luke 10, which seem to be saying that salvation is secured by how you treat others.
I see many videos this days where people try to prove that Paul is false( their objections are stupid and proves that video authors don't know bible at all) even Christians are saying that Paul contradicts gospels and he is confusing, but i dont understand how does Paul's letters contradict gospels at all. they misunderstand and blame on Paul😂. when i started reading Paul's letters i was in shock i was asking myself who is this genius, is he even a human? 😂 i wish to be persecuted for Christ like Paul was and Love my Lord like he did. he is my favourite apostle too.
Your work is well done and valuable! Thank you!
1)God can be referred to as "Abba" (Romans 8:15, Galatians 6:4 // Mark 14:36
2) We are to give to God what belongs to God ( Romans 12:1-2// mark 12:17).
3)We are to bless those who do wrong to us and love our enemies (Romans 12:14, 19:21// luke 6:27-28, Matthew 5:44).
4) we are to live peaceably with all people (Romans 12:18// Mark 9:50)
5) love fullfills the law (Romans 13:8// Mark 12:28-33)
6) we must remain alert for the second coming (Romans 13:11-14// Luke 21:28, 31:34)
7) we are not to judge others (Romans 14:1-13// Matthew 7:1)
8) Salva is offered to gentil (Romans 15:8-9// Matthew 8:11).
9) we are to be wise as to good and simple to evil (Romans 16:19// Matthew 10/16).
10) Kingdom is offered for the low status in the world (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16// Luke 10:21-24)
11) ungodly people seek for a sign (1 cor 1:20-25// Luke 11:29-32)
12) the Gospel will offend many (1 Corinthians 1:23// Matthew 11:6)
13) we are called to be trustworthy stewart who will be judged by our master (1 Corinthians 4:1-5// luke 12:41-46).
14) we are to expect mistreatment in Kingdom work ( 1 Corinthians 4:12-14// Luke 6:22-23)
15) remaining single requires special Gift from God (1 Corinthians7:7 Matthew 19:12).
16) we are called to suffer and serve and not to be served (1 Corinthians 9:19, 10:33, phil 1:27-2:11, mark 10:45// 1 Corinthians 11:1)
17) Faith can move mountains (1 Corinthians 13:3// Matthew 17:20)
18) our earthly trmple is made with hand but we shall inherit temple not made wirh hands(2 Corinthians 5:1, Mark 14:50).
19) Kingdom is accompanied with signs and wonders (2 Corinthians 12:12// Mark 6;7)
20) Knowledge of Lord Jesus' indentity comes from divine revelation ( Galatians 1:1,12-16, Matthew 16:16-17).
21) whosever rejects God's message reject God ( 2 Thessalonians 4:8// Luke 10:16)
22) we must return evil with good ( 1 Thessalonians 5:16, Romans 12:17// Matthew 5:39-4, Luke 6:29)
23) cataclysmic events will provide the second coming ( 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Mark 13).
Great work
Paul did not hijack or even invent Christianity; he was a follower of Christ the same as the rest of the disciples.
Thanks for this!
James Tabor need to hear this video....
What basis do those people cobble together to make the claim? I've never gotten the feeling that there were differences.
They needed a scapegoat to discredit Christianity. The couldn't find one in Christ or the apostles. Paul was easy target for them.
Any time I hear that I mention 2 Peter 3 and how Peter referred to Paul’s writings as scripture. Usually ends that argument.
It might, if Peter actually wrote it. If you believe that, fine. But if you want to think about it, what evidence do you have that he did? People who disagree with you have a wealth of evidence that he didn't.
@@truncated7644 What's not to believe? 1. It exists 2. It has always been attributed to Peter 3. It's in the Bible, which is the Word of God. Done. You're actually going to side with "scholars" who are not only atheist but also hostile towards Christianity and Jesus AND 2000+ years later? You can if you want to...but there is a ton of evidence not to.
@@3luckydog if you are going to put "scholars" in scare quotes, I don't think you are open to anything I could tell you. And I think you agree with me that you have no idea who wrote Hebrews.
On the other hand, I would be very interested in what you have to say about Peter 1 and 2 being written by Peter.
@@truncated7644 no, I don't agree with you. Paul wrote Hebrews. You're making the claim against 1 and 2 Peter, what do you have to say? As for my use of "scholars" ...it is referring to those who are hostile and willfully untruthful to the very subject matter they have dedicated their lives too. As far as I am concerned they have flushed their own credentials down the toilet. From those "scholars" we get the idiotic Q theory and assertions like we don't know who wrote Hebrews, Peter etc.. It's just Jesus hating, Marxists Communists doing the very thing they stated they would which is to kill God and the Bible.
@@truncated7644what evidence do you have that Peter didn't write his letters?
Great points about what Paul says that is the same in the gospels.
The problem is the places where Paul contradicts, not where he agrees.
Just like the snake in the garden said truth mixed with false.
We were warned against the false prophet, the “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. He will look like a sheep. You must look beyond the surface appearance and see the differences.
Even the Tares look just like wheat at first.
AND Yeshua said the tares would come right after the good seed.
I know exactly who the tare is. It is Paul.
Great video
What I see is basically:
Jesus tells people that mosaic legalism is outmoded by his new covenant.
Paul says: definitely true but you still can’t go around sinning. Sexual morality still exists.
People like Nietzsche “Paul made the message about HATE BECAUSE HE WORSHIPS HATE”
Hamza only has one refutation against Christianity
Oh man I love that graphic in the beginning. 🤣🤣🤣
Grant Theft Paul
@@darkwolf7740GTA San Pablo 😏
Good video, but I think that Paul-bashing tends to be a bit passé nowadays -- the much more likely go-to person to go to when you want someone to blame for all the ills of Christianity is Constantine. 😆
You'd be surprised.
It’s still lox and bagel for Orthodox Jewish Anti-missionaries.
They need to quite massacring my boi Constantine.
@@TitusCastiglione1503 anything to suggest beside Leithart’s “defending Constantine”?
@@NGAOPC not at the moment. Though, that is *really* great book.
But Paul totally went off the mark that Jesus is God, like the gospels stated…
Hijacking a religion doesn’t necessarily mean making it all about you, Paul was an esoteric Jew, a Pharisee, the idea of incarceration, deifying a man can be seen in all religions that were corrupted by esotericism and pharisees were one of them they believed in astrology, magic, deifying oneself etc all of that is in the talmud today
As a muslim I can think of many examples that happened within islam al durzi made Druze religion by deifying the alHakim biAmrillah, ibn Nusayr made Alawism and Ibn Saba made early Twelver Shiism both by deifying Ali ibn Abi Talib, and the last two contradict all what Ali preached
All of these deified people other than themselves
Paul made the same thing with Jesus and switched the whole message of Jesus, he abolished the law when Jesus said he came to fulfill it not to destroy it, he said Jesus is God even tho Jesus himself never said he is God and said that he is a man only sent by God
It is a pattern that you will find in almost all religion
Paul didn't hijack Christianity. This is Christianity that hijacked Paul.
I wouldn't say hijack but his letters make it clear there were disagreements and he was in opposition of other views including the so called super apostles
Hello! a question, have you read the book Rethinking New Testament Dates: Evidence of Early Composition ? I find a very interesting book if you have read it, what do you think? a greeting! : D
The section on the Gospels and Acts is gold. Bernier's book is great.
Frankly, it was just a rewrite of Richard Bookham's arguments
A video on where their teachings coincide isn't convincing. We need a video of their teachings that differ. I'm having a hard time determining if I should take Paul's teachings as inerrant, or look at them as the teachings of an early church father that was prominent but fallible.
I'd say you should never view any man as infallible. (Except Christ in his human form)
Even the Catholic and Orthodox Christians, though they honor/venerate the saints, know that the Church Fathers differed on different positions, explanations, and also weren't perfect.
(Though Catholics drop the ball on papal infallibility, I admit)
Whatever good came from these saints was always accredited to Christ in them though.
They were extremely humble and brilliant men, but they knew their own weaknesses and limitations as well.
We always need to take everything we read from fellow Christians with a grain of salt.
Even Peter says Paul's teachings are difficult to understand, but he never discredits Paul altogether.
So even in this instance, we see a small criticism of Paul, showing him to be clearly fallible, but not altogether wrong.
As long as we can all agree that Jesus is the Son of God that died for our sins and gave us the Holy Spirit, we agree on the foundation of Christianity.
As for small details and non-salvific theological differences, the reason these even exist is because men are still fallible due to the flesh.
Paul has some of the most beautiful, complex and profound teachings in his letters.
Just from this alone, you can sense that he's operating from a very high spiritual level.
Whatever jives with Jesus' teachings is perfect Truth, whatever doesn't may have slipped in through the flesh or due to ignorance.
Paul took his message to those who witnessed Jesus live, die, & rise from the dead and they couldn't find anything wrong with what he was saying (Gal 2 : 1 - 10). God had set up the apostles to be the ultimate testers of what was from God and what wasn't since they were witnesses to what Jesus did and they were prophets of God who spoke what God told them to say.
Paul even challenged his fellow prophets to recognize what he was teaching the churches was the Lord's command, and that if they did not recognize what he wrote then they should not be recognized. (1 Cor 14 : 36 - 38)
In one of Peter's letters he tells his readers that Paul's writings are Scriptures.
"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as *our dear brother Paul* also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. *He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort,* as they do *the other Scriptures,* to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3 : 15 - 16)
In 2 Peter Chapter 3 Peter refers to Paul’s writings as scripture. Nuff said.
Don't know if I missed it, but Peter confirms what Paul said in Peter's letters.
What makes you think Peter wrote anything? Acts says he was illiterate.
@@truncated7644 wrote is not the correct term many scholars believe that Peter used scribes to write his letters
U mention all the similarities but don't contend with any places where they appear to be at odds.
you mention they are at odds but you don't mention any places where they are
@@TestifyApologetics Here's some:
1.
Matt 7:21-23 Not everyone who says to me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
But Paul mis-quotes the OT:
Romans 10:13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
2.
Matt 5:7 Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy
Romans 9:18 God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy
This is again against only believe and be saved because it’s the merciful who will be shown mercy, not those who believe only.
3.
Matt 5:17-20 Do not think I’ve come to abolish the Law or the Prophets…but to fulfill them…until heaven and earth pass away, not the least jot or tittle will by any means disappear from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven…unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees…you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.
This is similar to Paul’s purposeful mis-quote of Deut 30:14 in Romans 10:8 where he leaves out “that you may do it” and instead inserts “the word of faith”.
4.
Mark 10:6-9 But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.
There is a sacred expectation to get married. The purpose of creating male and female was for marriage. Marriage is sacred.
1 Cor 7:7-8 I wish all of you were as I am…To the widows and unmarried it is good for them to stay unmarried as I do.
Paul clearly doesn’t think highly of marriage, although he tolerates it.
5.
Matt 5:44 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
Invoking curses is the opposite of turning the other cheek.
6.
John 20:17 Go instead to my brothers and tell them “I am ascending to my Father”
1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Jesus entrusted women to speak. Where did Jesus show any indication that women should be quiet?
1. Matt 7:21-23 Not everyone who says to me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
But Paul mis-quotes the OT:
Romans 10:13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Paul also says those who practice evil will not enter into the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21. For Paul salvation is becoming a new creation in Christ. It is your new nature that allows you to walk in obedience to Christ. See Galatians 5:22-26.
He doesn't misquote the OT, although he did put his own editorial spin on it at times, much like the rabbis of the time did. Read them, they get much more creative than Paul does. Also, Peter reportedly quotes the same passage on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. You know, Peter...Jesus' right hand man.
2.
Matt 5:7 Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy
Romans 9:18 God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy
This is again against only believe and be saved because it’s the merciful who will be shown mercy, not those who believe only.
Paul says the unforgiving are among the condemned and that we must show mercy because God has shown mercy to us. (2 Tim 3.3, Eph 4:32, Ro. 2:1-4.) Paul is talking about election in Romans 11, just as Jesus does in John 6.37-40.
3.
Matt 5:17-20 Do not think I’ve come to abolish the Law or the Prophets…but to fulfill them…until heaven and earth pass away, not the least jot or tittle will by any means disappear from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven…unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees…you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.
Paul was a torah observant Jew. We also see this throughout Acts.
* “Brothers, I am [present tense] a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (Acts 23:6 ESV; see Acts 26:5).
* “But this I admit to you . . . I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets. . . . I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people” (Acts 24:14, 16 NRSV).
* “I have in no way committed an offense against the law of the Jews, or against the temple, or against the emperor” (Acts 25:8 NRSV).
* “Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our ancestors, yet I was arrested in Jerusalem” (Acts 28:17 NRSV).
If you want to say that the author of Acts is lying here, I have provided abundant evidence in other videos that the author of Acts traveled with Paul and was familiar with him. The author also depicts him as taking a nazarite vow in Acts 18:18.
Plus, we see this in his writing, particularly 1 Cor 7:7-20. In v 17 Paul emphasizes that those who are circumcised, representing Jewish identity and lifestyle, should maintain their Jewish heritage and not assimilate into other cultures. This principle applies universally in all of Paul's congregations. The term "circumcision" symbolizes a comprehensive commitment to the covenant, encompassing an entire way of life for the Jewish people.
Paul connects circumcision with adherence to the law in Romans 2:25 and Galatians 5:3, asserting that its value lies in obedience to the law. If the law is broken, circumcision loses its significance. Like Jesus, he sees love as fulfilling the law (Matthew 22:37-40, Galatians 5:6-13, Romans 13:8-10) The unique wording in 1 Corinthians 7:18 - "Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision" - reflects a Greek idiom harking back to the Maccabean era when some Hellenistic Jews rejected their identity, even resorting to surgical alterations. Paul is saying DO NOT do that.
4.
Mark 10:6-9 But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.
There is a sacred expectation to get married. The purpose of creating male and female was for marriage. Marriage is sacred.
1 Cor 7:7-8 I wish all of you were as I am…To the widows and unmarried it is good for them to stay unmarried as I do.
Paul clearly doesn’t think highly of marriage, although he tolerates it.
This is is a real whopper of a mistake here. Jesus and Paul agree: In Matthew 19:4-6 we have the same saying. Then in Matthew 19:12 it says. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others-and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Paul is not saying everyone should be celebate no more than Jesus. He encourages married people to get married and gives instructions in Ephesians 5:21-33 how married couples should treat one another. I have multiple videos demonstrating that Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and the Pastorals are not forgeries, btw. So don't go there without reviewing them first.
5.
Matt 5:44 Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
Invoking curses is the opposite of turning the other cheek.
You clearly have not read Paul very well at all. Honestly, this is a bit embarrassing. Jesus had very harsh words for false teachers himself, just see Matthew 23. Also, see Romans 12.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
This is very similar to Jesus' words from the Sermon on the Mount, and some scholars believe he is drawing from Jesus' words in some form of oral tradition, as he does elsewhere. (See 1 Corinthians 11 regarding the Eucharist, or 1 Thess 4:15 regarding the second coming)
6.
John 20:17 Go instead to my brothers and tell them “I am ascending to my Father”
1 Tim 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Jesus entrusted women to speak. Where did Jesus show any indication that women should be quiet?
This is really poor exegesis. I'm sorry, I can't sugarcoat it. Paul gives instructions under what conditions women my prophesy in 1 Cor. 11:5. Paul commends Phoebe, a female deacon. He mentions like half a dozen other women in Romans 16, including Prisca, who is depicted in Acts as instructing Apollos in the ways of the Lord (Acts 18:24-28) He says she risked her neck for Christ. Furthermore, Junia is also mentioned. Paul praises Junia as a prominent apostle who had been imprisoned for her labor. Junia is named as a female apostle. While there is debate around her identity and people want to turn her into a man, most scholars agree it's a female name. Others want to nitpick if she was an apostle or not, but regardless she was listed as being a prominent woman who was serving the cause of Christ.
I'm sorry man, but this is really weak. You need to read up on the NT before spouting off in some comment section. If Paul was preaching a different Gospel than Jesus, then why did he receive the right hand of fellowship from Peter, James and John? (Galatians 2:9) You should get your understanding of Paul from Paul himself, reading him more closely, not from watching Kristi Burke and Tovia Singer on TH-cam.
@@TestifyApologetics 1.
It's a mis-quote because the author had no intention of that verse meaning only call upon the Lord and you will be saved. It's out of context. And Paul may say, as in 1Cor 6:9-10, that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, but let's face it, most (though definitely not all) of the interpretations by Protestants that only calling upon Jesus as Lord saves you comes from Paul's writings. And certainly it did NOT come from Jesus' sayings. Therefore, Paul was a bad teacher of Jesus. Being given his knowledge by revelation from Jesus, one would expect he would write in such a way as to not even come across as contradictory, instead of relying on them reading letters to OTHER regions to get the full context.
3.
I don't deny Paul acted according to 1Cor 9:20-22: "unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law."
A veritable two-facer. But circumcision, regardless of how Paul defines it, IS PHYSICAL as clearly commanded explicitly in many verses of the OT. Saying the Gentiles can count being under "the law of Christ" as circumcision is flat-out WRONG!
4.
It's clear Paul doesn't view marriage highly, but as acceptable, but that ideally everyone isn't married. It's a mockery to say that. It's not nearly as mocking to acknowledge that some cannot get married, but to say being unmarried is SUPERIOR is not what Jesus meant...or if it is, then Jesus is mocking God or His own creation.
5.
While Paul reiterates Jesus' teachings on forgiveness, he also says you should curse disbelievers, which is contrary to Jesus' teachings. (Though not contrary to Yahweh's teachings...that evil one).
6.
Would Jesus have commanded the women to be quiet in the same context as Paul did? I guess debatable, but I hope not. Is women being quiet in the same context still practiced by Christians today? I guess so for Catholic priests who give the sermons.
Tovia Singer is awesome. You did not respond to the clear mis-quote of replacing "that you may do it" with "word of faith"
Paul was a Herod working for Rome. Paul even tells on himself being relatived in Rom16.
The Herods were not jews but they infiltrated every powerful movement in Judah.
This is why John keeps calling Paul “Balaam” and “antichrist”.
Paul snuck in to teach disobedience to god, but obedience to Rome.
The real apostles eventually found out about Paul. In particular James and John.
The whole book of James is written directly against Paul’s false teachings.
This scripture is made even more real
”and reckon the patience of our Master as deliverance, as also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these matters, in which some are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the other Scriptures.“
Kĕpha Bĕt (2 Peter) 3:15-16 TS2009
@7:07 you are incorrect he told them to collect money on sunday which is not day of the week. Sabbath is Saturday. You and I and the catholic or Protestant churches don't have the right to change the Holy Sabbath of the Lord.
Sabbath day
1) God Rested on the Sabbath day (genisis 2:3, Exodus 20:11)
2) Sanctified the Sabbath day (genisis 2:3)
3) God Blessed the Sabbath day (exodus 20:11)
4) Holy Day (Isaiah 58:13).
God didn't rested on sunday, He rested on Sabbath Day (Saturday). You can't push God to rest on sunday, you can't change God's resting Day in Genisis.
Now circumcision was for the Jews, who were under the promise given to Abharam. Where as Sabbath was for man(mark2:27) not just for Jews, Sabbath was even before fall of Adam and Eve. God Blessed the Sabbath Day in genisis 2:3. CIRCUMCISION CAME WITH ABHARAM, SABBATH CAME BEFORE THE FALL OF ADAM AND EVE. SABBATH came before there was sin in the World.
You follow your sabbath and I'll follow THE LORD'S SABBATH.
Anybody who says Paul hijacked christianity is calling Jesus a liar, saying that the gates of hell would not stand against the Church, but with corrupted scriptures in 1st century.
So the theory is that the guy who used to be a notorious persecutor of the church, and therefore had zero credibility from the get go, giving the church every reason to be skeptical about his testimony and to be very critical of his teachings if they departed from what was traditionally accepted, somehow managed to fool everyone into accepting him, and then started preaching a message contrary to the 12 apostles whose witness both quantitatively and qualitatively surpasses that of Paul.... i thought skeptics believed extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence xD cuz that theory sounds as miraculous as anything to me
People really love ignoring theology, huh
Amazing. Thanks bro and God bless you! I pray and give thanks to Him for you! Praise the Lord for this day that he made :)
I would be really interested in a much deeper dive into this and maybe even a discussion/debate with the alternative views. I've been researching this for a while and my personal bias wants me to hold on to Paul's letters at Scripture, but there are some valid points from the other side.
The most levelheaded argument I've heard from the other side starts with Paul being deceived, not hijacking intentionally. Saul was spiritually vulnerable and did not have John's instruction to test every Spirit to see if it was from God. What criteria validates Paul's vision but disqualifies Muhammad and Joseph Smith's visions as being deceitful spirits?
Followers of Joseph Smith admitted he made it all up, so I'm not sure why we are even talking about this? The point is that Paul was well within the same belief system and taught the same gospel the apostles had already received. He was firmly grounded in the scriptures and was a pharisee. BTW Jesus was himself very likely a pharisee because the title rabbi was at the time only used for and by pharisees.
And after his vision he later met the other apostles to confirm what he taught was in line with proper doctrine.
@@MrSeedi76 I've never heard of a Mormon who doesn't believe Joseph Smith's vision and subsequent message were from God. Muslims all believe Muhammad received a message from God. Followers of Paul believe Paul that Jesus appeared to him without any witnesses to verify. I've noticed lately with more people questioning Paul how many will defend him like he's equal with Jesus and refuse to even question him and it reminds me of Mormons defending Joseph Smith. It's had me looking at Paul differently.
Also the couple verses where Peter seems to approve of Paul's message are followed by him warning about how they're going to be used to practice lawlessness.
I've see some non-believers get the anti-Paul influence and then they see where Paul doesn't suffer a woman to speak. These 25 points help with the first part of their objections, and hopefully that opens their mind to the second thing they object to, but basically anti-Christians will see this as a huge contradiction from what Jesus taught. I'm not trying to derail all the good work you did in this video. I just want my friends Saved and to figure out if I can change their mind on some of the issue they take with these "misogynistic" or "sexist" bible verse(s) from Paul / others whatever.
I've read Shalom Ben-Chorin's book about Paul. As a Jewish scholar he sheds so much light on the difficult parts in Paul's letters. And he wrote that this commandment was probably to stop the constant talking during sermon. He mentioned, one need only look at the women section in a synagogue to know why Paul wrote that 😂. And in other places, Paul mentions that a woman should wear something on her head when speaking prophesy, so he obviously did suffer women to speak in the assembly.
I noticed in Acts 13:25, Luke quotes Paul’s sermon in which Paul quoted John the baptist, and it appears Paul used a form of John’s saying that most closely resembles the Gospel of John, not the Synoptics, including Luke. This suggests to me that Luke wasn’t refashioning Paul’s sermon however he liked, but faithfully reported it, since it is clearly different from Luke’s own rendering of John the baptist’s speech in Luke’s Gospel. This also implies that Paul was familiar with Jesus’ teachings independent of the source for Luke.
[25] And as John was finishing his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but behold, after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’
The Jesus described in John is clearly closer to Paul's message than the Jesus of Mark's gospel. Moreover, I noticed you ignored many of the glaring differences between the two. Fundamentally, the two differed on the state of man. Jesus taught that people are not good or bad, but what comes out of them defines them. People meet God's message by what comes out of them (their works). Paul feels all humans are bad and undeserving. The only way to be saved is to define Jesus as god and then the grace from god will be what redeems a person. There are so many, equally contradictory, differences that it does make a person sit back and wonder. Jesus says we are all equal under God and Jesus is simply a messenger. Paul builds all sorts of hierarchies among people (with himself on the highest level among humans.)
It is also noteworthy that Paul did not learn humility. Reread Mark's gospel and look at how Jesus talks about himself (note: seldom and when it happens, it is with humility). Now read the epistles of Paul. Paul is boastful, demanding of support, and cursing people who he does not like. Yes, they are clearly different people, and I accept that argument. But if a significant portion of the message Jesus taught is humility, Paul missed the mark.
Consider the probability: Paul, a young pharisee from asia minor, moves to Jerusalem. He implies he is important (as if he had a voting position in the Sanhedrin), but seems to never be more than the council's step-n-fetch lackey. The pharisees believed in many of the ideas we believe (today) to be foundational to christianity, including immortality of the soul and bodily resurrection after death (unlike the Sadducees). Paul clearly tried to rise and be important in the Jewish religious council and failed. After capturing/killing yet another christian, he realizes he has a better chance of rising in power in this new cult than he does in the Sanhedrin. All he has to do is claim Jesus spoke to him and miracle or miracles, converted him from being a pharisee to a christian. Paul then takes off and leaves the area for three years (Arabia) so he could come back claiming to be personally appointed by Jesus to be a disciple. From there, he returns to the lands of his youth (asia minor) and opens "christian churches" where he can be seen as the leader. He continues to preach the pharisee beliefs of the immortality of the soul. He demands to be raised up and recognized as important, even demanding financial support from churches in Rome he did not create. (Interestingly, the didache states that if a prophet asks for money, they are a false prophet.) I find this line of reasoning more plausible than Paul was converted and learned about christianity from Jesus during his three years in Arabia.
After reading each 'book' on its own merits without letting the stories from other books to cloud the image the book is teaching, the Jesus of Mark's gospel would not approve of the Paul described in any of Paul's epistles, both the ones scholars feel was written by Paul and the ones regarded as not.
The only reason people say Paul hijacked the gospels is because they decided that they don’t like what he says.
It's not only muslims and mythicists but the scholarly consensus too.
The Paul slander needs to stop fr fr
By who exactly? I've read works of top new testament critics such as Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman and they don't seem to go after Paul too much (At least not the same way Muslims do). They are critical of some of the things Paul says and point out that Paul disagreed with the apostles on some things but they don't claim Paul completely hijacked Christianity or made up an entirely new religion the polar opposite of everything Jesus taught.
Quote scholars. Even if you do, Brother Testify proves in this video that they're lying. Also just read the NT for yourself, lol
Lol! No. It’s not.
oh no muh consensus. also cite your numbers, back up your assertions. it is NOT consensus.
You will response to atheogica? He made a video with things that you said
It's right here. isjesusalive.com/a-brief-response-to-atheologicas-doubts-about-doubts/
Real apostle of jesus was beheaded by paul
Paul is bountry hunter of christan
Even luke said paul is enemy
And yet you believe Paul write new testament 😂😂😂
Paul write about his dream and hear voices from bush 😂
Every time someone says things like this about Paul it reminds me of 2 Peter 3.169, "...[Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
Guy lands a plane after several wild events, a voice helps him land the plane, you want the guy arrested for highjacking the plane for listening to the Voice from the Tower.
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Luke 10:16
Anyone who is rejecting Paul should read this.
The Gospel will offend many.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
I feel so sad for Paul. People should stop speculating about Paul starting Christianity and try to understand that Christianity is ALL bout following JESUS CHRIST. Infact, 9 out of 10 Christian who are converted to Christianity vome to the saving Grace of JESUS through the Testimony of The Gospels and NOT the letters of Paul. ♥️🤗🙏✝️👍♥️
boss just go compare Psalms 2:12 in your bible and compare it to the original jewish tenach , is it ''honor the son'' or '' arm yourself with purity'' then come back to me and tell me your bible is not corrupted.
Is this just a Septuagint vs Masoretic debate?
@@danielbelteshazzar-mg7rb so which is corrupted the christian bible or jewish tenach Psalms 2:12? very easy simple question, you have the internet right ?
Paul is arguably the second most important figure in Christianity. No one else did more to spread the word in those early years. So much so that writings were forged in his name for credibility. His writings date earlier than any of the gospels in the bible. He and Peter may or may not have gotten along, but Peter recognizes him as a central figure in those days. I'm not saying he hijacked Christianity, but he influenced it more than anyone else. The gospels were largely oral when Paul wrote his letters, and it's impossible to know for certain that his ideas didn't influence the synoptic gospels. John is marching to his own drummer and consequences be damned. The question is, Is Paul the chicken or the egg for a ton of Christian theology.
There is a big question mark behind the gospels being "mainly oral" at the time. In all the time studying theology (where this was consensus) I never came across a really good argument why there should have been a long oral tradition over decades before anything was written down. Judaism at the time was already a book religion. And more people could write than people are aware of. I know the arguments for an oral tradition but they are not convincing. Maybe for a rather short time but not over decades as if they first needed to invent writing. When Jesus himself read from the scroll of Isaiah and had a lot more followers than just the famous "illiterate fishermen". There is evidence for some of the material in the gospels being ordered by criteria that hint to at least a partial oral tradition but not nearly enough to claim that this tradition lasted over decades. And the evidence isn't at all clear that Paul's letters predate all gospels.
Of course Paul hijacked it, that is why Luke made a careful investigation, interviewing many people and came up with the same thing as those who were not discipled by Paul. Duh. 😂
The "skeptics" aren't really skeptical of their own views, are they.
Luke was Paul’s friend and doctor, and the only person to stay with Paul right to the end (Colossians 4:14)
It's hard to hijack something you create.
So he didn't hijack Christianity. He hijacked one particular and obscure Jewish cult and turned it into something else.
🤓
that's what the entire video seeks to debunk, fella.
Christianity existed as an already widespread institution before Paul even claimed to be Christian.
There's no evidence to prove that Paul literally created Christianity.
That’s a ridiculous assertion. Watch the video.
Let's compare the gospel (good news) taught by Jesus
with
the gospel taught by Paul
==================
>>> What is the gospel according to Jesus?
*"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."* (John 3:16-17)
Jesus said that anyone (Jew or Gentile) who believes/trusts in the Son will not perish but have eternal life.
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, *“The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”* (John 6:28-29)
Jesus said the work that God requires is to believe in the one He has sent. The one God has sent is Jesus, His Son.
- - - -
>>> What is the gospel according to Paul?
*"Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.* *By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.*
*For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that* *he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to* *more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he* *appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."* (1 Corinthians 15:1-8)
Paul said his gospel is that Christ died for our sins, he was buried, he was raised from the dead, and he appeared to many after his resurrection. The gospel according to Paul is Jesus himself.
*"Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel,"* (2 Timothy 2:8)
Paul said his gospel is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and descended from David. Again, the gospel according to Paul is Jesus himself.