January 9, 2005 / Volume 9, Issue 2
Was Paul A Deceiver
...continued
Once more, we return to the arguments made by Sherry Shriner regarding the apostleship and integrity of Paul, who is writer of almost ˝ the New Testament. Thus far, it appears that Shriner's reasoning comes not from logical consideration of the Bible, but an intense hatred which she bears for the apostle. She has cut and pasted the apostles words, intended to harm him, but has instead brought harm to herself and her credibility. Let us continue in our investigation of her claims.
| SHRINER'S CLAIMS | ANSWERS |
| There was a distinction even back then with the disciples of Jesus and Paul and "his" followers. Barnabas and Mark both followed Paul at one time and then left him and went back to the disciples. Barnabas was sent by the Apostle Peter to travel with Paul and teach Paul the ways and teachings of Jesus, but Paul wasn't going to be second fiddle to anyone and usurped the authority of Barnabas and taught what he wanted to teach. How many ever knew that Paul was supposed to be subservient to Barnabas? | Last week, we briefly mentioned Shriner's rewriting of history so far as whether Mark and Barnabas turned from their relationship with Paul. We pick up this week regarding the relationship between Paul and Barnabas.
Shriner tells us that Peter sent Barnabas to teach Paul, but that he would not submit to Barnabas, but continued in his own teachings. Interesting story, but it is not from the Bible.
Let's chronicle the relationship of Barnabas and Paul from the Bible (specifically Acts):
Barnabas brought Paul to the apostles (9:27);
Barnabas was sent by the church at Jerusalem to minister at Antioch (11:22);
Barnabas sought Saul, who was at Tarsus, and brought him to help at Antioch (11:25);
Barnabas and Saul brought relief to the saints in Judea from Antioch (11:30; 12:25);
the Holy Spirit called Barnabas and Saul to a special work (13:2, 7, 43, 46, 50; 14:12, 14, 20);
Barnabas and Paul went to Jerusalem to discuss the issue of circumcision with the elders and apostles (15:2, 12);
Paul and Barnabas, with other men, were sent to bear news of the discussion (15:22, 25);
Paul and Barnabas were ready to revisit the brethren they formerly ministered to, but did not do so together because of a dispute over Mark (15:35-39);
other references of the nature of their relationship can be found in 1 Corinthians 9:6; Galatians 2:1, 9, 13; Colossians 4:10.
Curious, I do not see where Barnabas was sent by Peter to teach Paul the teachings of Jesus, or where Paul usurped his authority. These are merely Shriner's tales to discount the apostle. |
"Indeed I PAUL say to you that IF ANYONE BECOME CIRCUMCISED Christ will profit you nothing" (Gal. 5:2)
too bad Paul! The circumcision was a sign of the covenant between Israel and Yahovah and you're lie was exposed for what it was! Another false "divine revelation!"
YET, despite his assertion that ‘Christ will profit you nothing', ‘Paul' himself, HYPOCRITICALLY "took TIMOTHY and CIRCUMCISED HIM" (Acts 16:3). |
Shriner is right, circumcision was a covenant between Israel and God. Why then should the Gentiles need to be circumcised? The audience to whom Paul wrote the letter of Galatians to were for the most part Gentile (see Gal 4:8).
Was it only Paul who taught that the Gentiles need not receive circumcision? Shriner needs to reread Acts 15. Some came from Jerusalem teaching the necessity of circumcision as per the law of Moses if one wanted to be saved. Paul refuted their teaching, as did the elders and apostles in Jerusalem.
What is meant by "if anyone become circumcised Christ will profit you nothing"? In the context, Paul admonishes those who have found liberty in Christ not to be entangled in the law of Moses. Incidentally, the apostle Peter agreed with Paul (Acts 15:10).
Why did Paul circumcise Timothy? Does it demonstrate him to be a hypocrite, as Shriner suggests? Paul and the apostles adamantly opposed those who added Moses' law to Christianity. Paul did not circumcise Timothy in order to secure his salvation (as was being taught by the false teachers). It was merely to avoid oppositions and reproaches from the Jews while Timothy journeyed and worked with Paul (Acts 16:3). |
Now Paul declares it's ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than THESE NECESSARY THINGS: That you ABSTAIN FROM MEATS offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled and from fornication..." (Acts 15:28-29)
"But I (Jesus) have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a STUMBLING BLOCK before the children of Israel, TO EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS." (Revelation 2:14) |
Again, Shriner gave no reference for Paul's teaching. He addresses the eating of meats in three texts. Shriner would have us believe that Paul taught the exact opposite of what is found in the letter from Jerusalem. Let's see.
In Romans 14, Paul seems to address whether Jewish Christian could eat meats that formerly were considered unclean (cf. Acts 10:9-16). It was a matter of conscience. Whether one ate or did not eat, no one was to judge another or to cause offense or stumbling over food.
In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul speaks of eating meats which were sacrificed to idols. He states, "...we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one." (v 4). However, he adds, "...there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled." (v 7). As such, Paul commands those who do have the knowledge that the idol is nothing to be conscious of their brethren who do not share that knowledge (v 8-13).
Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul addresses briefly the eating of meats which have been sacrificed to idols. Whether one eats or does not eat again is dependent upon conscience. Not always the individual's conscience, but also with a view toward the conscience of others.
Paul does not violate the injunction of the letter from Jerusalem. If one held any thought of the idol, Paul commanded them not to eat of the meat. However, for those who knew that the idol was nothing, the eating of the meat was of no consequence. Shriner has failed to show that Paul's teaching contradicts the command given in Acts 15. Incidentally, Paul was there, and thus would know what was meant by the command, Shriner was not.
We'll address Revelation 2:14 next week. |
Click here for this week's Answering The Atheist
Did Jesus come to bring peace? Some texts say that he did (Luke 2:14; John 14:27; Acts 10:36), while others say that he didn't (Matthew 10:34; Luke 12:51; Luke 22:36). Is there a contradiction?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
