Paul: Hero Or Villian

[Stone holm]

I thought we were discussing Paul in relation to Christians, not in relation to the traditional Jews of the time. What does it matter whether or not the Jews accepted Christ?

I thought we were discussion Paul in relation to the law with the law being somewhat in the abstract. Christ changed the "law" as it was practiced by stripping it of accumulated barnacles. But to say, I am living the commandments because I understand the "actual" why behind the commandment, while you believe that I do not live the commandment because you do not understand the commandment....is not a terribly satisfying argument or assertion. Which causes me to circle back to the question about the "law", the law as it was understood was one thing and the law under the new understanding may have been different. But, it is clear that Peter lifted some of the requirements of the law of Moses -- so are you saying that Paul still remained Kosher, etc.? The lifting had more to do with the fulfillment of the law, rather than a new understanding of the "why". If much of the law of Moses was aimed at testifying of the coming of Christ, the why didn't change -- the why just was no longer necessary because Christ had already come.

[volgadon]

I thought we were discussion Paul in relation to the law with the law being somewhat in the abstract. Christ changed the "law" as it was practiced by stripping it of accumulated barnacles. But to say, I am living the commandments because I understand the "actual" why behind the commandment, while you believe that I do not live the commandment because you do not understand the commandment....is not a terribly satisfying argument or assertion. Which causes me to circle back to the question about the "law", the law as it was understood was one thing and the law under the new understanding may have been different. But, it is clear that Peter lifted some of the requirements of the law of Moses -- so are you saying that Paul still remained Kosher, etc.? The lifting had more to do with the fulfillment of the law, rather than a new understanding of the "why". If much of the law of Moses was aimed at testifying of the coming of Christ, the why didn't change -- the why just was no longer necessary because Christ had already come.

Nonsense. Jesus was lenient in some areas and stricter in others, but to say that he stripped the law of "accumulated barnacles"? In the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, we have him adding to the law.

[Damien the Leper]

My wife and child will likely hold a different view. =)

I didn't know you had a child...how old is he or she?

Prophecy concerning the Volgadon bloodline...

A family of Jewish-Mormon scholars who will be a proper heir to the Abrahamic line and covenant. You will go beyond any celestial glory and transcend more than a thousand realities and universes. Eat your heart out El Elyon!

[Damien the Leper]

Nonsense. Jesus was lenient in some areas and stricter in others, but to say that he stripped the law of "accumulated barnacles"? In the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, we have him adding to the law.

Agreed. I pointed this out in my posts #87 & #88 in this thread.

[Ron Beron]

Paul was an apostle called by Christ, a "chosen vessel". While his words may be flowery and hard to understand, his zeal for the gospel can hardly be disputed.

Fortunately we have apostles and prophets today, also called of Christ, and one specifically as the oracle of Christ, to help us from falling into apostasy.

To many people, Paul was indeed a hero, and to many a villian, just as Joseph Smith in our dispensation is a hero to many and a villian to many. But it is not important what any of us think of Paul, or Joseph Smith. The opinion that God has of them is what is important. And that is what we need to do, i.e. get our opinions in line with those of God, "lest haply" we "be found even to fight against God."

Glenn

My opinion of Paul is that while he significantly changed the gospel of Jesus to suit a more cosmopolitan world it was done for reasons I have yet to understand. Certainly, the gospel was hidden for 1800 years and perhaps for a good reason, but it would be hard for me to believe Paul served the designs of the Jerusalem Church.

[Nevo]

Eisenman inane? I guess you say this because he has written so little on the subject.

I've said mean things about Eisenman more than once on this board but I was flipping through his massive book on James the other day—a book that I've had sitting unread on my shelf for more than a decade—and I have to say the guy is the real deal. He may be a crank, but he's a massively erudite one.

[Glenn101]

My opinion of Paul is that while he significantly changed the gospel of Jesus to suit a more cosmopolitan world it was done for reasons I have yet to understand. Certainly, the gospel was hidden for 1800 years and perhaps for a good reason, but it would be hard for me to believe Paul served the designs of the Jerusalem Church.

Paul was not called to minister to the Jews. His call was to the Gentiles. However, I do not see him changing the gospel to suit a more cosmopolitan world. We have so very little of the doctrine that was taught in the New Testamant. We do not have anything like an Ensign magazine from those days, or anything like a Journal of Discourses (probably a good thing) to help us understand what the apostles and other disciples were teaching.

However, on the subject of baptism for the dead, we do have some complementary remarks from Peter about Christ preaching to the dead during His Three Day Bodyless Sojourn in the Spirit World.

I believe that Paul was teaching what the Lord wanted him to teach, although he was not shy about voicing his own opinions in the mix.

Glenn

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Slight correction...He wrote most of the accepted NT, but even there were many of the epistles were written by others, probably disciples. Only seven are undisputed:

1. Romans
   
2. First Corinthians
   
3. Second Corinthians
   
4. Galatians
   
5. Philippians
   
6. First Thessalonians
   
7. Philemon
   

If these were written by other disciples it was because they wrote his sermons and epistles. All of the books you mention were the "words" of Paul, as all our modern Apostles and Prophets have noted, along with every translator of the NT. I have read many accounts and heard them noted by GA's other than Apostles from the Seventy. Hebrews is the only one that may be in question, but the one most quoted by our leaders. It pains me and concerns me that so many try to marginalize Paul. Muslims believe he was almost the sole "inventor of Christianity. He was an Apostle of The Lord Jesus Christ, called personally...he deserves all the respect that goes with that office. Edited May 2, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[MormonMason]

I've said mean things about Eisenman more than once on this board but I was flipping through his massive book on James the other day—a book that I've had sitting unread on my shelf for more than a decade—and I have to say the guy is the real deal. He may be a crank, but he's a massively erudite one.

Someone I know often refers to Eisenman as "The D. Michael Quinn of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars" precisely because of his erudition and sheer number of padded footnotes. Eisenman's biggest problem is his claim that the Scrolls mention the disputes involving James when they have nothing to do with that figure at all. The texts he cites as primary evidence date too early, both by paleographic dating and by carbon dating. They also fit far better the historical context of the early disputes between the Sadducees and Pharisees described by Josephus during the times surrounding Alexander Jannaeus and his wife. But, Eisenman dismisses it all with a wave of the hand and still insists that the Scrolls mention James and supposed disputes with him. Baigent and Leigh need no further comment other than to say that they were clueless.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My opinion of Paul is that while he significantly changed the gospel of Jesus to suit a more cosmopolitan world it was done for reasons I have yet to understand. Certainly, the gospel was hidden for 1800 years and perhaps for a good reason, but it would be hard for me to believe Paul served the designs of the Jerusalem Church.

Then why did Joseph know him? Unless Truman Madsen, Susan Black, Richard Bushman as well as other scholars have lied. He did not change anything, the world just misunderstood him. Also where do you come up with 1800 years of the gospel being hidden. Certainly in the 1st century it was in very good shape, then the coming forth of our Bible in 1611, still in use by us. Not to mention that most of the early Apostles help Joseph restore the whole understanding as well a restore the Church again, not a new one. Paul did not teach against works...ever! He pointed out that we are saved by grace and not of works...pointed out that we cannot boast. A point that Bruce R McConkie made very clear in his final address. We are exalted by our works, but only because we are saved by Grace. Let me quote Elder McConkie from memory...

"I am one of his witnesses, and in the coming days I shall feel the nail prints in his hands and feet and shall wet his feet with my tears, but I shall not know better then than I know now, that he is God's almighty Son, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning sacrifice AND IN NO OTHER WAY! God grant that we may walk in the light as he is in the light".

I fear for us all if we belittle any of the Lord's anointed, in any age, I mean no disrespect, just concern. Any of us who think we can save ourselves only through "works" is lost. No Grace, no Salvation.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Stone holm]

Nonsense. Jesus was lenient in some areas and stricter in others, but to say that he stripped the law of "accumulated barnacles"? In the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, we have him adding to the law.

Yes, he gave unto us new commandments and he pointed out the hypocrisy of others. I do not see it as a matter of leniency, but of correction. The Lord has pushed the reset button from time to time. Because mankind frequently insists on living in a black and white world . Mankind insists there must be a right or wrong to every issue. It craves rules and objectivity in an increasingly complex world and there are always people willing to give them what they crave, not spiritual insight, but rules, pledges, etc.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I didn't know you had a child...how old is he or she?

Prophecy concerning the Volgadon bloodline...

A family of Jewish-Mormon scholars who will be a proper heir to the Abrahamic line and covenant. You will go beyond any celestial glory and transcend more than a thousand realities and universes. Eat your heart out El Elyon!

According to Galatians and the teaching of Paul, as it the issue of the thread, all who accept Christ become the "seed of Abraham and heirs to the promise". But your point is well made about our friend, and no you cannot have him to yourself.

[Ron Beron]

Paul was not called to minister to the Jews. His call was to the Gentiles. However, I do not see him changing the gospel to suit a more cosmopolitan world. We have so very little of the doctrine that was taught in the New Testamant. We do not have anything like an Ensign magazine from those days, or anything like a Journal of Discourses (probably a good thing) to help us understand what the apostles and other disciples were teaching.

However, on the subject of baptism for the dead, we do have some complementary remarks from Peter about Christ preaching to the dead during His Three Day Bodyless Sojourn in the Spirit World.

I believe that Paul was teaching what the Lord wanted him to teach, although he was not shy about voicing his own opinions in the mix.

Glenn

Fair enough, but the level of animosity between him and the Council in Jerusalem is palpable. Paul wanted to baptize Gentiles into "Christianity" without the benefit of circumcision and other aspects of Judaism. James was vehemently opposed to this but agreed to allow the Gentile coverts in as long as they followed the Noahide Codes. His concept of Jesus as an essential "cosmic", i.e., bodiless deity is definitely different than that of the apostles who knew Jesus in the flesh and were astonished that this one time persecutor of Christian Jews was now saying he knew better than they.

[Ron Beron]

Someone I know often refers to Eisenman as "The D. Michael Quinn of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars" precisely because of his erudition and sheer number of padded footnotes. Eisenman's biggest problem is his claim that the Scrolls mention the disputes involving James when they have nothing to do with that figure at all. The texts he cites as primary evidence date too early, both by paleographic dating and by carbon dating. They also fit far better the historical context of the early disputes between the Sadducees and Pharisees described by Josephus during the times surrounding Alexander Jannaeus and his wife. But, Eisenman dismisses it all with a wave of the hand and still insists that the Scrolls mention James and supposed disputes with him. Baigent and Leigh need no further comment other than to say that they were clueless.

I knew Eisenman from the classroom and he can definitely be a bit "scratchy", And so goes academia.

[Ron Beron]

Then why did Joseph know him? Unless Truman Madsen, Susan Black, Richard Bushman as well as other scholars have lied.

Joseph did know him, as does millions of others, but his doctrine occasionally ran counter to the teachings of Jesus. I feel these were done to help assimilate the Gospel into the Gentile world. It cannot be argued that the church, in total, is the same as was in the first century. It has changed exponentially over the last two millenium. I cannot help but think that like the Golden Plates the gospel was hidden under a rock of apostasy until it come back under more nurturing times and circumstances. To this end, Paul must have been a player.

.

Also where do you come up with 1800 years of the gospel being hidden. Certainly in the 1st century it was in very good shape,

Even Paul warned of a coming apostasy in his own time. It changed when Jerusalem fell and the temple Jews dispersed.

He did not change anything, the world just misunderstood him

My kids used to use this line. It was easy to misunderstand Paul because he either personally changed his teachings or others changed it for him.

I fear for us all if we belittle any of the Lord's anointed, in any age, I mean no disrespect, just concern. Any of us who think we can save ourselves only through "works" is lost. No Grace, no Salvation.

I have never spoke against works without faith or vice versa. I, too, believe in it. BTW, I don't believe Paul was ever anointed, but I could be wrong.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Even Paul warned of a coming apostasy in his own time. It changed when Jerusalem fell and the temple Jews dispersed.

I think you made my point...he spoke of a falling away and then helped it happen by changing the Gospel of Christ? It cannot be both. As for as the issue of being anointed, he was an Apostle, never known one who was not.

One more thing it was Saul, "Paul" who held the coats to those who killed Stephen, the first martyr...so great was his conversion that I cannot believe he would do anything to change the Gospel of Christ who called him from the heavens personally.

But, I have done my best to defend this amazing man and Apostle.

Peace my brother.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Ron Beron]

I think you made my point...he spoke of a falling away and then helped it happen by changing the Gospel of Christ? It cannot be both. As for as the issue of being anointed, he was an Apostle, never known one who was not. But, I have done my best to defend this amazing man and Apostle.

Peace my brother.

I don't think Paul ever believed the gospel would survive his own century because in his mind Jesus would be returning. It was lights out when it was obvious Jesus' return was not imminent. I think that Paul felt that the gospel needed to heard and accepted by all in as short a time as possible. To do so he cut some theological corners. Edited May 3, 2013 by Ron Beron

[volgadon]

Yes, he gave unto us new commandments and he pointed out the hypocrisy of others. I do not see it as a matter of leniency, but of correction. The Lord has pushed the reset button from time to time. Because mankind frequently insists on living in a black and white world . Mankind insists there must be a right or wrong to every issue. It craves rules and objectivity in an increasingly complex world and there are always people willing to give them what they crave, not spiritual insight, but rules, pledges, etc.

I'll pick two well-known examples. In matters of Sabbath observance, Jesus was lenient, his stance rather similar to the predominant pharisaic trend after AD 70. However, when it came to divorce, Jesus was very stringent, unlike most pharisees. As for accrued barnacles, Jesus made it so that even looking at a woman lustfully was breaking the law.

[Glenn101]

Fair enough, but the level of animosity between him and the Council in Jerusalem is palpable. Paul wanted to baptize Gentiles into "Christianity" without the benefit of circumcision and other aspects of Judaism. James was vehemently opposed to this but agreed to allow the Gentile coverts in as long as they followed the Noahide Codes. His concept of Jesus as an essential "cosmic", i.e., bodiless deity is definitely different than that of the apostles who knew Jesus in the flesh and were astonished that this one time persecutor of Christian Jews was now saying he knew better than they.

I have never detected a palpable animosity between Paul and the council in Jerusalem. In fact, in Peter's second epistle he refers to Paul as "beloved". (2 Peter 3:15) I do not see James being vehemently opposed to any of Paul's methods of gaining converts. The affection for Paul and Barnabas is noted in Acts 15:25, "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,"

The dissension was with certain Jews who had gone about proclaiming that the Gentile converts were in need of circumcision. This one thing the apostles set straight and sent out letters denying that thye, the apostles, had ever taught any such thing,

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:"

And then, in verses 28 and 29, there were just a few "necessary things" that the Gentiles were asked to observe from the Law of Moses.

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

I have never gathered from Paul's writings that he though Christ was a bodiless diety. In fact Paul's preaching in Acts, Chapter 17 pretty much shows that paul believed that Christ was a resurrrected being, with a body.

1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

In 2 Timothy 2:8 Paul reiterates his belief that Christ is a resurected being.

8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

And again in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul states that Christ was resurected.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

In fact, 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 is a testament to the resurrected Christ, and the resurection of the dead. I see nothing in Paul's writings that contradicts this belief in a bodily resurrected Christ.

I don't think ever believed the gospel would survive his own century because in his mind Jesus would be returning. It was lights out when it was obvious Jesus' return was not imminent. I think that Paul felt that the gospel needed to heard and accepted by all in as short a time as possible. To do so he cut some theological corners.

Without Paul's writings we would not have any Biblical support for baptism for the dead, the three degrees of glory, nor the church being built on a foundation of apostles and prophets. I don't see any theological corner cutting. I only wish that we had more from those early apostles. I would wager, if I were a betting man, that those writings would confirm and complement Paul's writings even more.

Glenn

[Ron Beron]

I have never detected a palpable animosity between Paul and the council in Jerusalem. In fact, in Peter's second epistle he refers to Paul as "beloved". (2 Peter 3:15) I do not see James being vehemently opposed to any of Paul's methods of gaining converts. The affection for Paul and Barnabas is noted in Acts 15:25, "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,"

Forgive my skepticism, but II Peter was probably not written by Peter, but by a later, possibly 2nd century author. I careful reading of Acts will show the growing animosity between first Paul against Peter,

Galatians (2:11-14):But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

and later James almost threatens Paul when he relates,

When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.”

The result was that Paul had to be rescued by a contingent of Roman guard even though Paul tried to appease the masses...

When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, against our law, and this place . . .” Then all the city was aroused, and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut. While they were trying to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. Immediately he took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. When they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. Then the tribune came, arrested him and ordered him to be bound . . .

[Acts 21:27-33]

When Paul was arrested he stands alone. Not one Jewish Christian or Nazarene stands with him. James Dunn writes, "

. . . when Paul was arrested and put on trial we hear nothing of any Jewish Christians standing by him, speaking in his defence – and this despite James’s apparent high standing among orthodox Jews . . . Where were the Jerusalem Christians? It looks very much as though they had washed their hands of Paul, left him to stew in his own juice. If so it implies a fundamental antipathy on the part of the Jewish Christians to Paul himself and what he stood for." [unity and Diversity in the New Testament, p. 256, italics Dunn’s]

The dissension was with certain Jews who had gone about proclaiming that the Gentile converts were in need of circumcision. This one thing the apostles set straight and sent out letters denying that thye, the apostles, had ever taught any such thing,

Of which James was the leader. Jeffrey J. Bütz in theThe Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity writes...

As shocking as this may sound, there are some scholars who go so far as to claim that James and the elders purposely lured Paul into a trap! If you think such an idea is totally unfounded, note well the end of verse 30: “They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.” But such speculations take us far beyond the evidence and are little more than conjecture. Yet, Dunn’s assertion, while it goes against the rosy picture that the church has held throughout the centuries, is congruous with all the other evidence we have examined to this point. It should be quite obvious by now that Paul was completely despised by the Jewish Christians.

What is also quite curious about chapter 21 of Acts, is that the stated reason for Paul’s visit to Jerusalem — to deliver the collection which he had gone to such great lengths throughout his journeys to take up on behalf of “the poor” in Jerusalem — is, quite strangely, never mentioned by Luke! This is a highly unusual omission of what would have certainly been a momentous event in the history of the church. Acts’ silence about the collection being delivered has caused more than a few scholars to conclude that the collection was actually rejected by the elders! That would have been a bitter pill for Paul to swallow; and, if indeed the collection was rejected (quite likely in light of the bitter attitude of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem), it is reasonable to suppose that Luke, who was at pains to put a good spin on things, likely would have covered up this embarrassing faux pas for relations between Paul and Jerusalem. Luke’s silence on the collection speaks loudly.

If it is true that the collection was rejected, then relations between Paul and Jerusalem had indeed reached the breaking point. Even a conservative evangelical commentator like Ralph P. Martin admits that, by the time of Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem, his “ministry was decisively rejected by James and the Jerusalem leadership” [James, Word Biblical Commentary #48, p. xxxvii]. The official acceptance of a collection gathered from Paul’s Gentile congregations would be seen as tacit approval of Paul’s teachings.

By the time that Luke wrote his two-part history of the church near the end of the first century, the church had largely been transformed from a Jewish phenomenon into a Gentile phenomenon. Therefore, the beliefs and teachings of James slowly became subsumed under the beliefs and teachings of Paul. This led to a not-so-subtle prejudice against the thoroughly Jewish form of Christianity that the Jerusalem Church and its leaders represented, which ultimately led to the “blackballing” of James in the New Testament.

While James had unflagging zeal for the Law, it was Paul’s relentless zeal for the mission to the Gentiles that won the day. Due almost single-handedly to Paul’s ceaseless efforts, Christianity increasingly became a Gentile movement, and the importance of the Jewish Law naturally waned. There were also factors beyond either James’s or Paul’s control — namely, the Jewish revolt against Rome in the year 66 and the resultant sack of Jerusalem in 70, resulting in the second Diaspora of the Jewish people. After 70, the Jewish form of Christianity which James represented, and which was so thoroughly rooted in Jerusalem, found it difficult to survive in the Gentile world and was quickly on the road to extinction, while Paul’s new Gentile form of Christianity continued to flourish and soon evolved into Christianity as we know it today. While the emerging catholic Church abandoned the dogmas associated with adherence to the Law, it quickly developed dogmas of its own to replace them, one of which was the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. With the rise of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and especially with the growth of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, James and the rest of Jesus’ siblings became an embarrassment that needed to be hidden in the closet. Soon the memory of their importance, and even their existence, was tragically lost.

But this memory was not lost by all. There were those who continued to keep a candle burning in memory of James, and continued to uphold his theology and teachings. They have generally been referred to in history as the Ebionites.

Without Paul's writings we would not have any Biblical support for baptism for the dead, the three degrees of glory, nor the church being built on a foundation of apostles and prophets. I don't see any theological corner cutting. I only wish that we had more from those early apostles. I would wager, if I were a betting man, that those writings would confirm and complement Paul's writings even more.

All good points, but while vicarious baptism is reported it is not supported. There is some evidence that the varying degrees of glory are actually gnostic in origin and any mention of church would have been unnecessary since there was not belief in the need for a church in light of the imminent coming of Jesus.

[Glenn101]

Ron, I forgive your skepticism easily, because there is nothing for you have done for me to forgive. However, I think that you are misinterpreting what the apostles in Jerusalem were saying to Paul. It is clear that those apostles did not believe the reports that had come back from certain quarters about Paul preaching that the Jews no longer had to obey the law of Moses and have their children circumcised. I am going to quote a few more verses in addition to the ones that you mentioned, which paint a different picture altogether.

19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Here the apostles are telling Paul what reports that the Christian Jews in Jerusalem had received about Paul's missionary efforts in the Gentile cities. There were Jews there that had disputed with Paul as to the meaning of the scriptures and Christ and the resurrection. Either those Jews did not understand that Paul was teaching that the Gentiles only did not need circumcision, or they were dissembling to the believing Jews in Jerusalem when they said that Paul was preaching that the Christian Jews no longer had to have their children circumcised. The apostles did not believe it, as the following verses show:

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

That there was a rising antipathy towards Paul among the Jews in Jerusalem, fueled by those who had returned from Asia bearing false witness. But that ill feeling was not echoed among the apostles.

The seeming fact that there were no Christian Jews who stood with Paul is irrelevant. Do tou think that the Sanhedran would allow anyone to speak for Paul?

The best we have to go on is the words of Luke, and his words do not indicate that the apostles in Jerusalem had any bad feelings against Paul. The oppiste seems to be true.

Glenn

[Ron Beron]

Ron, I forgive your skepticism easily, because there is nothing for you have done for me to forgive. However, I think that you are misinterpreting what the apostles in Jerusalem were saying to Paul. It is clear that those apostles did not believe the reports that had come back from certain quarters about Paul preaching that the Jews no longer had to obey the law of Moses and have their children circumcised. I am going to quote a few more verses in addition to the ones that you mentioned, which paint a different picture altogether.

19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Here the apostles are telling Paul what reports that the Christian Jews in Jerusalem had received about Paul's missionary efforts in the Gentile cities. There were Jews there that had disputed with Paul as to the meaning of the scriptures and Christ and the resurrection. Either those Jews did not understand that Paul was teaching that the Gentiles only did not need circumcision, or they were dissembling to the believing Jews in Jerusalem when they said that Paul was preaching that the Christian Jews no longer had to have their children circumcised. The apostles did not believe it, as the following verses show:

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

That there was a rising antipathy towards Paul among the Jews in Jerusalem, fueled by those who had returned from Asia bearing false witness. But that ill feeling was not echoed among the apostles.

The seeming fact that there were no Christian Jews who stood with Paul is irrelevant. Do tou think that the Sanhedran would allow anyone to speak for Paul?

The best we have to go on is the words of Luke, and his words do not indicate that the apostles in Jerusalem had any bad feelings against Paul. The oppiste seems to be true.

Glenn

While the apostles tried to calm the feelings among the common people the animosity did exist. I think that while they actually did not want harm to come to Paul they certainly wanted him out of Jerusalem and to continue on his missionary journies, but at the expense of following the Noahide Laws, i.e.,

1. Prohibition of Idolatry
   
2. Prohibition of Murder
   
3. Prohibition of Theft
   
4. Prohibition of Sexual immorality
   
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy
   
6. Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
   
7. Establishment of courts of law
   

Regarding skepticism I am reminded of Elder Holland's latest talk in conf. about faith.

Brothers and sisters, this is a divine work in process, with the manifestations and blessings of it abounding in every direction, so please don’t hyperventilate if from time to time issues arise that need to be examined, understood, and resolved. They do and they will. In this Church, what we know will always trump what we do not know. And remember, in this world, everyone is to walk by faith.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Ron Beron

[teddyaware]

While the apostles tried to calm the feelings among the common people the animosity did exist. I think that while they actually did not want harm to come to Paul they certainly wanted him out of Jerusalem and to continue on his missionary journies, but at the expense of following the Noahide Laws, i.e.,

I've been following your dialogue with Glenn with some interest. One key item to factor in to your perceptions of Paul is that a great portion of the New Testament is composed of his writings. I don't think it's likely that in the economy of God this was a accident. I am a long time lover of Paul's epistles, and often find his writings are my ace in the hole when discussing the Gospel with non-LDS Christians. His epistles are a veritable treasure trove of gospel knowledge in defense of the doctines of Restoration, and I believe the Lord wanted it this way.

[Ron Beron]

I've been following your dialogue with Glenn with some interest. One key item to factor in to your perceptions of Paul is that a great portion of the New Testament is composed of his writings. I don't think it's likely that in the economy of God this was a accident. I am a long time lover of Paul's epistles, and often find his writings are my ace in the hole when discussing the Gospel with non-LDS Christians. His epistles are a veritable treasure trove of gospel knowledge in defense of the doctines of Restoration, and I believe the Lord wanted it this way.

The poetry of Paul's epistles are, I agree, a watershed of spiritual values. Having said that some of them don't serve their spiritual purpose when exposed as early pseudepigraphical frauds often written by later individuals anxious to gain for themselves Paul' notoriety.

[Glenn101]

While the apostles tried to calm the feelings among the common people the animosity did exist. I think that while they actually did not want harm to come to Paul they certainly wanted him out of Jerusalem and to continue on his missionary journies, but at the expense of following the Noahide Laws, i.e.,

1. Prohibition of Idolatry
   
2. Prohibition of Murder
   
3. Prohibition of Theft
   
4. Prohibition of Sexual immorality
   
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy
   
6. Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
   
7. Establishment of courts of law
   

Ron, I am sure that the apostles did want Paul to be on his way, back on his missionary endeavors. The city was in an uproar, caused by some dissembling Jews. But it was the Jewish leaders that took up the hue and cry. I still do not see animosity on the part of the twelve themselves.

I also really cannot see all of the Noahide laws you listed in the list that was sent out.

Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication

That is just a subset of the Noahide laws, and the ones that the apostles specifically asked the Gentile converts to follow.

I am going to leave it at that. We do see things a bit differently, while looking at the same sets of scriptures. I am more orthodox in my approach, whatever that is. I have enjoyed the discussion.

Glenn