“Paul is not essential. He’s not a requirement to be a Christian.”
“You only have Paul’s word for being a ‘light to the gentiles’ and let’s face it Paul was known as a liar, he said so.”
“Jesus never tells us to follow Paul. Paul tells us to follow Paul.”
“Paul did not meet the criteria for being an apostle, therefore he wasn’t one except through his own mouth.”
“Why did none of the other apostles or disciples of Jesus ever actually call Paul an apostle??”
“No, the early Church did not accept Paul. He was utterly rejected by the Ephesians, even Paul testifies to that. Ephesus found him to be a false apostle and a liar.”
These comments probably appear strange on a Christian apologetics blog, but they are quotes from recent online discussions I’ve had with people who believe the Apostle Paul was a fraud. Was he? Are none of his epistles to churches of any worth to followers of Christ? What about the the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles? Are they also fraudulent?
I first came across people who didn’t believe Paul was a legitimate apostle of Christ about 40 years ago. However, the anti-Paul sentiment has been around for a lot longer than that. It goes all the way back to the 1st century AD.
“Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 9:1-2
People who believe Paul was a fraud seem to be in agreement that some of the writings of the New Testament should not be there. They are in general agreement that all of Paul’s letters are fraudulent. Most also agree that 2 Peter is a fraud. That’s convenient for them since 2 Peter 3:15-16 supports Paul’s apostleship. There is some divergence of opinion from there. Some of the anti-Paul group believe that all of the Gospels are Scripture, including Luke’s Gospel, some don’t. I find that interesting since Paul mentored Luke. Some who accept Luke don’t accept John’s Gospel. Many of those people also don’t accept John’s letters and Revelation. They are anti-Paul and anti-John. It’s a bit hard to keep up with all of the different nuances of what they do and don’t accept as being God’s Word.
Some of the anti-Paul group don’t accept Luke’s Acts of the Apostles even though they do accept Luke’s Gospel account. Others accept the first several chapters of Acts, but not after chapter 6 because Paul is introduced in chapter 7. Do they believe that Acts 7 – 28 is not part of God’s Word because of some textual reason? Not that I’ve seen. The main reason seems to be that the rest of Acts is pretty much about Paul and they believe Paul is a fraud, so what Luke wrote must be fraudulent. I do wonder why they would trust Luke at all in Acts or in his Gospel account if they think he’s a liar and party to a fraud about Paul. That’s not logical. Luke wrote a long narrative to his friend Theophilus that began in Luke 1 and ended in Acts 28. Why trust any of it if you believe Luke is a liar and manipulator? There is no reason to believe that Luke was a liar and fraud, but if you believe that at least be consistent. If you believe Luke was a liar and fraud, then you can’t and won’t accept either one of his narratives to Theophilus.
For the person who does not accept Luke, Acts, 2 Peter, Hebrews and all of Paul’s letters, I don’t think there’s anything anyone can do to help you. You’ve chosen to throw out every possible piece of evidence that would tell you anything about Paul. That’s like a trial judge who disallows every piece of evidence that would prove the defendant not guilty just because the judge does not want the defendant found not guilty. The court is stacked against the person in that case. The same is true in the way many people handle the evidence for Paul’s apostleship. If the evidence could possibly support Paul’s legitimacy as an apostle of Jesus Christ, they throw it out. That’s not reasonable, logical, ethical or legal, so there’s nothing I can do to convince you because your mind is made up and closed to the possibility of being wrong. You have come to the table of discussion with presuppositions, preconceptions and thick ear plugs. You do not want to know, so you won’t know.
However, if you have questions about whether Paul was an apostle or a fraud and you’re open to looking at all of the evidence, then we can look at the evidence together and see what’s there. Once you have seen all of the evidence you can make your own informed decision about Paul. From talking with many anti-Paul people and reading their literature for years I’m convinced they have not seen all the evidence, have incorrectly interpreted the evidence they have seen and are closed to looking at it with fresh eyes and open minds.
We’ll begin opening the evidence in the next part of our investigation: Paul – Apostle or Fraud.
“Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.”
Gary says
I don’t know of any secular scholar who believes that ALL of Paul’s epistles are fraudulent. There is near unanimous agreement on seven authentic Pauline epistles. There is a false assumption among many Christians that the Bible is either a complete fraud or 100% accurate. This is black and white thinking. The good scholar and historian carefully examines the text to determine what is fact and what is not. The good scholar and historian does not start out by assuming the text is a fraud…or…that the text is the inerrant message from a god.
Outlander says
Brawnson – Articulate, insightful, eye opening! The Spirit of God still speaks through men!
Brawnson says
I find the problem with Paul is that Christians ascribe a Christ like
infallibility to his statements. He is granted this status because he
wound up listed among texts that were later canonized (by men, but not
because God said his writings were beyond disagreement). Paul was also
accepted as knowledgeable by some of the disciples, but not always
agreed with. Therefore, it seems Paul’s associations grant him a
uncritical consideration by many Christians. However, when you look at
his testimony, he does not fit the criteria of a man that should be held
up so uncritically. He claims to have had divine contact on the road to
Damascus, but none of the men traveling with him heard the words Paul
claimed to hear. He lacks witness support at the site of this miraculous
incident and is only supported by a single profit that he meets later.
Although Paul may be sincere, this is not a set up for authenticating
him as infallible in his teachings. Thus my position is that Paul should
be considered as a man of true conviction, but not infallible in his
teaching. If anything we should be willing to recognize Paul as at odds
with the truth when some of his statements seem too require too much
stretching to fit with teachings of Christ. For example, Christians have
to do all kinds of verbal gymnastics to keep both Paul and James
statements as compatible when discussing works and grace. Maybe Paul
just doesn’t have to be right and Christian traditions have simply
turned the Bible into an idol rather than being willing to accept the
literal words of God as truth.
Mark McGee says
Hi, Brawnson. We will look closely at the evidence for Paul’s apostleship from the Book of Acts in future posts. What are your thoughts about the accuracy of Acts?
Brawnson says
Hi Mark,
I look forward to seeing your upcoming articles on this matter. As for my thoughts around the book of Acts, I weigh it on its own merits (as I believe all the Biblical books should be). More specifically, I see Acts as a reasonably earnest effort, by Luke, to give an account of events that did unfold around the early church.
That said, it is widely accepted that Luke was an admirer and follower of Paul and followed his teachings fairly closely. This is not necessarily a negative, but it does make it easier for Luke to side with Paul, despite some of the discord between Paul and the 12 disciples of Christ. Luke (through Acts) does seem to minimize conflict or imply these conflicts were resolved, but that can’t be seen definitively.
Peter, James, and the other apostles seemed concerned that Paul was minimizing the value of the law. Paul assured them that he was not and that he was merely attempting to avoid making knowledge of the law and obstacle to those who would join the faith. They collectively seemed to agree on some minimum standards that new Christian gentiles should follow, such as not drinking blood and staying sexually pure etc. However, it is unclear if these minimized standards were intended to be perpetual or simply a way to accept that Paul was going to bring people up to speed over time. Whatever the case, Paul left these meetings and proceeded with his teaching that the law is dead for those in Christ.
It is interesting to me that James later writes that faith without works is dead, almost as though Paul may have been seen as taking his license (minimal law requirements discussed earlier), granted by his council with the disciples, too far.
We also learn in the book of I Timothy (1:15) that Paul was rejected by the church in Asia. This is interesting since the book of Revelation (2:2) speaks approvingly of the Asian church’s rejection of a false prophet.
It seems there may have been more tension between Paul and other early church founders than Luke emphasizes in the book of Acts (even though he does expose some of it, which he later seems to smooth over).
What all this does to my perspective of Acts is cause me to recognize that it is a reasonable earnest account, though written from the perspective of a supporter of Paul, who may not have wanted to demonize Paul’s ministry.
Where this places Paul is not clear to me, as one could argue that Paul’s purpose was to break from Jewish covenant law and show gentiles how faith in God must unfold for them, distinct from the Jews (since they were not bound to the Israelite covenant that God had made with the Jews). Alternately for me, Paul may have gone far off the rails and formed an understanding of truth that departed from Jesus teachings and those of the disciples, fashioning something that combined Greek philosophical thought with a selective understanding of Jewish teachings (palatable to gentiles, but less so to the Jews).
This makes Paul an enigma for me and not a villain. Was he predestined, by God, to open a door for gentiles to know Him, which had previously required a Jewish like ambracing of God’s covenant law with the Israelites?… Or was Paul an intelligent philosophical fraud, who believed his own teachings, but lead many people to believe that they no longer needed to examine God’s teachings to Moses, no longer did they need to understand the rational depths of the law, since the law was dead, despite Jesus claim that he had come to fulfill the law and not abolish it? The answer to me is unclear, but what is clear is that the Bible (taken as a whole) does not provide a quick and easy answer.
Mark McGee says
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about that. Do you believe Luke’s “reasonable earnest account” in Acts is on the same level as writings the Holy Spirit inspired or is it more of a human attempt on Luke’s part? Should it be included in the New Testament as Scripture or should Acts be moved to a category with other books about church history?
Brawnson says
Thanks for the replay Mark. This last question takes me deeper into the rabbit hole of questions, which I began developing as a child raised in a fundamentalist Christian home. I did not come to doubt the existence of the God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but I did come to ask myself just how many assumptions I had made in accepting the box that Christianity has framed God in.
Thus my next question is this… Why do Christian’s assume that The Bible is all inspired by the Holy Spirit, with no hierarchy of authority that makes some writings subordinant to others? The Jews themselves read their own scriptures in this hierarchy, with texts having the highest authority being those quoting God directly. After these quotes from God comes words of prophesy (direct messages, a la “Thus saith the Lord” type statements), which must be affirmed and witnessed others of faith. beneath these first two categories comes teachings of learned men of God.
In contrast, most fundamentalist Christians simply call all scripture equal and leave it at that. Could it be that Christians have reduced the complexity of these layers of authority and instead sought out an easier formula… one that allows them to rest on an assumption of uniform authority and thus does not require one to wrestle for the actual heart of truth?
To address you question more directly, what is a scripture that is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Even if we assume that Paul speaks for God himself (which is not self evident, as his authority to make pronouncements for God is what we are challenging), he states in II Timothy 3:16 that scripture is inspired by God and good for teaching and reproof. However, this was written before the Biblical canon and so could only be in reference to the the Jewish scriptures of that day.
If that is true and Jews themselves understand scripture in a hierarchy, the method of canonization that Christians rely upon comes into question. I say this since there was never a directive from God or Yeshua to canonize a Bible. Although many Christians will say that our current Bible simply reflects what the early church used before the council of Nicea, the truth is that the closest early church fragment (The Muratorian Fragment) has a sequnce of books that is not the same as what we have today and it is not the same as what the Nicean council ratified. Thus it seems that Christians are granting supernatural assembling of scripture to a body of men in Nicea that neither God nor his son spoke of as being necessary. Why do we assume they were to frame this for us? Why are they given the right to declare our Bible the inspired Word of God when the church before them had been more open to debating the content of scriptural authority?
I won’t dig to far into this next point, but I am also unclear as to why references to text that is inspired by God is not more critically examined. Today we would never accept a man handing us a letter that he says is inspired by God himself, without critically considering the authenticity of that claim. Does inspired mean the writer was simply pure of heart and writing with a fallible human understanding? Does inspired mean that his words are to be taken as coming direct from God or must he still be evaluated against a higher standard? Lastly, what divine authority bears witness and grants this person the right to claim his letter is a direct communication from God, if he is suggesting it is more than an earnest attempt to reflect what he feels God might be saying to him? We would typically ask all these questions of a person handing us this letter today, but we assume these things when the words are bound in leather and called a Bible by the council of Nicea?
With the above considered, I have no problem with Acts being in the Bible, but neither do I have a problem with recognizing that the Bible (as Christians have it) was never declared by God as inspired. The earnestness of the writers is not what I dispute, but our assumptions about the Christian culture being divinely developed is what seems to be an error.
The book of Acts, as I understand it, is like many other books in the Bible. It is a book written by a man with a hunger to share what he is witnessing, so that people can see what he sees and understand what he understands. However, that understanding is subject to human biases and fallibility, as all humans are. To say it is something supernatural and beyond that requires a witness of divine authority that has made no such pronouncement over the book in question, save for the fact that the church today seems to demand we simply believe they speak for God on designating this authority.
The truth is God’s word’s, as he speaks them, can be the only true purveyor of truth and designator of authority. Unless that is shown in substance it seems to me that we assume too much and make our own religion from it.
Mark McGee says
Good questions! Jesus spoke of the Hebrew Bible of His time as being the Word of God and authoritative (e.g. Luke 4: 1-12; 24:44-48). The Hebrew Bible as quoted by Jesus was a completed canon before He was born because He spoke about it in a completed fashion (e.g. Matthew 5:17-18).
The Jews of Jesus’ day held both the Torah and the Neviim in high regard. The Ketuvim less so until the 2nd century AD. However, Jesus spoke of the entire Hebrew Bible as being complete and necessary.
The early followers of Christ used the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Hebrew Bible during the 1st century AD, but began to use the writings of the Apostles in teaching and worship. That is not surprising given the fact that the new disciples on Pentecost “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship” (Acts 2:42).
As for a New Testament hierarchy, the Gospels would be at the top of that list. Every other Book of the New Testament flows from the foundation of the Gospels. Acts would be next in line of the hierarchy as a continuation of and all that Jesus said would happen following His ascension to Heaven and the coming of the Spirit to give the Church power. The apostolic letters follow the Gospels and Acts in the hierarchy. As Paul wrote, “if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). Nothing Paul or the other apostles wrote is of any significance or importance if the central message of the Gospels is not true. Thus, a Christian hierarchy.
Brawnson says
Thanks for your response Mark. You raise some very interesting points and references… which churn up yet more questions and challenges from my perspective (grin). I don’t wish to sound resistant for its own sake, but I find myself working to ferrite out religious assumptions from the true revelations/declarations of God’s nature. In my view, nothing aside from God himself (and what he has clearly declared as authoritative), is sacred. That includes the ideas and written beliefs held amongst Christians and/or Jewish circles.
You point to the hierarchy of the New Testament scripture. I appreciate that you see this, but it seems to me that there is a difference between how the Jews prioritize their sacred texts and how Christians do.
In fact, if I am not mistaken, you seem to make a slight assumption about how Jesus validated the Old Testament in his words from Matthew 5:17-18 (and similarly in the other associated references). In the Matthew reference, Jesus is specific about who and how he validates authoritative text, as his reference in Matthew was specifically to the Law of Moses and the prophets that the Jewish community accepted. This is important because there was no “Old Testament” in Jesus day and his references spoke only to specific scrolls. It is also important since there are differences between what we consider the Old Testament today and what the Jews accept (both past and present) as sacred text.
Be that as it may, Jesus applies a logical formula in what he states in your Matthew reference. Specifically, Jesus prioritizes what God says, from His own lips, to Moses as being supreme and above all other text. Closely connected, but second to this, are the utterances of the prophets (obviously positively witnessed to by other believers). This seems a logical way to validate what is true, as God’s authority is prioritized over the profits and both of these trump teachers of various insight.
The above being said, it must also be realized that God had made a covenant with Israel that was (and is) distinct from God’s plan for us gentiles. Where is that line between the Law as given to Moses for all mankind and God’s covenant laws as planned for Israel? Answering that question would seem important to me, as many Christians claim the Law is now dead for those in Christ, but many still pull laws from the pages of Leviticus or Deuteronomy to claim God’s direction for all mankind on various issues (while at the same time denying various other laws, seen as not applicable.)
Going back to your Matthew reference… Jesus does not define or validate what we currently call the Old Testament, let alone the texts of the entire Bible. Let me be clear that I am not trying to invalidate the Old Testament, but rather interpret how we wrestle with it as a series of texts with various levels of authority and, dare I say, righteous accuracy. My understanding is that these levels of authority provide a way to defend truth more completely, since conflict between two passages is solved when am writer of lower status can be declared wrong in the face of a writer with more authority.
I raise all this to contrast it with the Christian understanding of the New Testament. It’s authority and hierarchy seems much more built around assuming all the writers are speaking for God in equal measure. Even were that not entirely the case for some, there is an assumption that the writers all essentially line up theologically and that God himself validated the collection of books contained in the New testament. I note that even in your delineation of New Testament hierarchy the breakdown seemed to assume more about a hierarchy reflecting the chronological placement of authors and events than on distinguishing the authoritative voices of each author’s right to speak from a divine perspective. However, if we step away from assumptions we see that none of the above common assumptions hold all that well.
There was never a statement (implied or direct) that indicated the new Testament was to be compiled and held sacred. (Unlike how Jesus at least validates portions of the Torah). The finalized canon of the New testament was a man driven initiative (unless there exists a record of God’s direction on this that I am unaware of).
The writing of The New Testament on its face provides evidence of a struggle in coming to grips with how gentiles relate in a relationship with God, who had traditionally communicated with Israel via His unique covenant with them. This struggle is never declared as resolved entirely in the New testament and the words of Jesus actually seem to fly in the face of some ideas raised later in the early church by Paul and others. (i.e. Jesus emphasis on the the righteous act vs. Paul’s emphasis on the futility of works and the law). This demonstrates theological discord that can’t support infallibility from every author.
Lastly, if we grant (for the purpose of my argument) that the above assumptions are made in many Christian circles, then it is also assumed that Paul and Jesus are not in conflict in any of their teachings. However, when we remove that assumption and take away Paul’s assumed authority I believe a number of clashes come up when we really look at the two speakers messages. Paul was changing things in a way that even the followers of Jesus took issue with. Do we assume he was granted this authority and if not how do we authenticate his evolved position from the teachings of Jesus (who admittedly addressed a largely Jewish audience)? Does Paul get a pass because he is in the Bible (my answer is ‘no’)? Does Paul get a pass because he claims to have had a vision that his followers either didn’t see or hear, depending on which recount you go with (my answer is ‘no’)? Do we give him a pass because we feel other Godly men of his day seemed to approve of him when they weren’t disagreeing with him, even if God did not provide a lawfully witnessed validation of his authority (again, my answer is ‘no’)?
Although i don’t think Paul needs to be rejected necessarily, I do believe that a method for following the chain of divine authority seems rather broken with Paul and how the New Testament (and the Bible as a whole) is granted a uniformly divine license by many Christians.
I believe that God’s literal word is the only word (contrary to those who believe the Bible is the word). All other words (be they prophetic, be they Biblical teachings, be they Old Testament teachings etc.) must be placed in acknowledged subjection to His word. I am especially concerned that Paul (though he may be a good teacher in many ways) is not declared by God to be a perfect speaker of his word, such that we may not disagree with his understanding of the truth.
Thank you for your patience with my lengthy tome.
Mark McGee says
Thanks! I appreciate the time you’re taking to respond. You wrote – “In my view, nothing aside from God himself (and what he has clearly declared as authoritative), is sacred.” What parts of the Bible (Hebrew and Christian) do you believe God declared as authoritative?
Thanks!
Mark
Brawnson says
It seems to me that God himself should define any text we hold to as authoritative. Prior to the writings of Moses, oral traditions ensured that each generation understood what God had spoken to mankind. Historical context and/or human insights were infused with these traditions, not to raise human insight or historical knowledge to a position of Godly infallibility, but to impart a context for God’s words. However, anyone providing a recounting of God’s words would have been careful to distinguish their own human ideas from the ideas imparted from God, unless they were claiming to speak prophetically. Of course, every prophetic statement would have been scrutinized by men of Godly reputation and not every utterance of a prophet was seen as synonymous with God’s voice.
This does not mean that the human component has no credibility. It just means that what God clearly endorses and where God is most involved, limited human understanding or bias becomes less a factor.
As for the Old Testament writings specifically, there is a trail that God’s authority provides (which has nothing to do with what a council of men might ratify later). Jesus actually provides a reference to this very thing in your earlier Matthew 5:17 reference by isolating the importance of the direct communication of the law between God and Moses. Jesus second reference is to those acknowledged communications made by the prophets that spoke of predictions that God had illuminated through them.
Now it might be asked how one can be sure that all the Levitical laws can be guaranteed as coming from God, since the Levite priests were charged with many of these rituals and recorded teachings. I would say this is a good question, but of less concern to those not bound to the specific covenant between God and Israel. This is important in my view, as there is a distinct set of requirements laid out between God and the people of Israel specifically under covenant terms. That does not apply to gentiles as God made it clear he intended something specific for the descendents of Israel (Genesis 12:1-3 and Genesis 15 & 17)
I wouldn’t want to be mistaken for suggesting that anyone who is not a Jew can feel free to forget about God’s words to Israel, as there is much to be understood about God in His own words. I am saying that God himself made it clear who his covenants applied to and how. Therefore we can it seems to me that there is a distinction between the covenants that God made with Noah for all mankind are different from covenants made with Moses for Israel.
Before I move on to the New Testament, I’ll finish with my comments on The Old Testament by suggesting that God’s voice is clearest in his own words, followed by the clear prophesies of the prophets (David’s prophetic psalms included). Lower in authority and more open for debate are those writings and teachings that claim limited prophetic utterance, but hold valuable insight. Binding these latter words with more Godly utterances in a seamless collection should not automatically grant them equal status with God’s words. It should be noted that God never leads us to believe that any human possesses infallible knowledge, such that we no longer need to logically and critically examine their direction (even if they do end up in a Bible as an authority).
Without assuming a line is supposed to be drawn in the sand where the New Testament begins, our bread crumbs of authority lead us to Jesus. Without assuming Jesus should automatically have this status, we can see that he was prophesied of by many, including and especially God. Thus Jesus himself serves to validate other people and other writings, both past, present and future (but only as authentic in specific writings or statements, as he also grants no man infallible status).
Interestingly, Paul may have known he needed this validation, but he never crossed paths with Jesus. His Damascus testimony can not hold as a witness supported account (though it may be true, it is only a personal experience without an authoritative witness). This leaves us with Jesus being an authoritative voice in the New Testament and his disciples earning credibility via Jesus instruction to them directly.
There is no remaining bread crumb, that one can connect with God’s voice, that suggests we should hold the remaining words in the New Testament as sacred, be those words of Paul or anyone else.
I am not saying these other writings have no value or major insight. I am simply saying we are better served by looking at them with a higher level of scrutiny and critical evaluation, even questioning the way their ideas and words contrast with Jesus and the nature of God in The Old Testament. This critical eye seems vital to me, as their claim to authority has come to them more through gradual human consensus, religious councils, and affectionate references by Jesus disciples. These latter criteria may place Paul in good company and good standing, but it does not make him reliable as an infallible mouth piece of God’s words.
Thanks again for letting me ramble.
Mark McGee says
Glad to hear from you! I agree with you about Jesus being the authoritative voice in the New Testament. I will address this during the series about Paul. Thanks!
Brawnson says
Great series of questions Mark and I look forward to reading the upcoming article.
Michael says
I don’t agree with those who think/believe St Paul to be a fraud, but he does get more than a little confusing. If we are to take his background/heritage for real, then I think that itself explains the sometimes hopscotch mind of the man. It’s a love/hate relationship for me – good at times, darn hard at times.
Michael says
I think most of feel that way about Paul and most of what he said most of the time.
Mark McGee says
Why is that, Michael?