Was Paul innocent or a liar?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 819
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Was Paul innocent or a liar?

Post by davidmartin »

According to Paul's account in Galatians, he was not made an apostle by authorization from people in Jerusalem. Paul never was an apostle in the sense that others were, at all. He only says he was
We also are in the same boat with the pillars. They say, apparently, they were apostles but are they?
The gospels give these apostles the hardest of times. No realising who Jesus was, or understanding his mission, denying him, arguing, abandoning him (in John) etc. This serves to undermine anyone who might have claimed some kind of continuation. A new line is being drawn. Just as Paul has his conversion so does Peter in Acts. So the 'before' is murky indeed
Even if James was the literal brother of the Lord, it means nothing when the gospels, like Mark, have Jesus saying his disciples are his true brothers
My point is, the schema that has the 'Jerusalem church' somehow representing the original movement is just as questionable as Paul's claim to a direct revelation. If Galatians is historic then it only means Paul encounters folk who are like him, claimants to be representatives. And my point stands that if Paul denies prior association with the movement to the pillars it suggests the pillars are not representing the original movement but there is a prior split or schism we are not seeing
gryan
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Paul innocent or a liar?

Post by gryan »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 12:13 am
Otherwise put, the Pillars before Paul would have agreed with Paul ?
  • The Mythicists answer: yes.
  • The historicists answer: no.
Tertium non datur.
There is a third possibility (historicist), if "James the Just" was not one of the pillars--The pillars James, son of Alphaeus, Peter and John, agreed with Paul's mission to Gentiles without a requirement of circumcision; and Paul's speech to Peter in Antioch according to Gal 2 could easily have won Peter's sympathy so that he would no longer withdraw from "eating with Gentiles" just because of fear of offending "some from James" i.e. James the Just. The list of minimal requirements in Acts 15 (not eating "blood" etc) in the letter from the main speaker, James, son of Alphaeus et al would have been things that Paul would have agreed with to such a degree that, in Gal, it went without saying.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 9228
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was Paul innocent or a liar?

Post by Giuseppe »

You seem to ignore that the possible divergence I talk about between Paul and the Pillars is about their respective christologies.
  • If the Pillars had a low christology, then Jesus probably existed.
  • If the Pillars had a high christology just as the Paul's christology, then Jesus probably never existed.
You are talking about mere Torah's observance as cause of divergence, which is not the same question I am talking here.

In addition, only fool Christian apologists can claim that Peter could still agree with Paul after the affair of Antiochia.
Post Reply