The Paul Haters

[Drax]

Ok people. I have seen several anti-Paul discussions on here lately. I have never heard of such things until I came to CF (and specifically to GT). Because I am so out-of-the-loop, I would like the Paul Haters to answer a couple questions to bring me up to speed.

1. Which group/sect/denomination/organization is it that believes Paul is a false teacher or a heretic?

2. Approximately when did this teaching originate? And don't say "1st century A.D." I mean when in the 20th or 21st centuries did this appear.

3. Do you believe that Paul's epistles should be removed from the New Testament?

4. Is this all a big joke, or are you actually serious?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No post..........

 

[wayseer]

Ok people. I have seen several anti-Paul discussions on here lately. I have never heard of such things until I came to CF (and specifically to GT). Because I am so out-of-the-loop, I would like the Paul Haters to answer a couple questions to bring me up to speed.

1. Which group/sect/denomination/organization is it that believes Paul is a false teacher or a heretic?

Read Luke/Acts - they are now called Christians.

2. Approximately when did this teaching originate? And don't say "1st century A.D." I mean when in the 20th or 21st centuries did this appear.

About the turn of the 1st century. It has nothing to do with the 20 or 21 centuries - you are just playing catch up. Paul was almost considered a heretic by the Fathers.

3. Do you believe that Paul's epistles should be removed from the New Testament?

Which one's did you have in mind - the real one's or the fraudulent one's?

4. Is this all a big joke, or are you actually serious?

No more serious than the author of Luke/Acts.

 

[Kaitlin08]

Ok people. I have seen several anti-Paul discussions on here lately. I have never heard of such things until I came to CF (and specifically to GT). Because I am so out-of-the-loop, I would like the Paul Haters to answer a couple questions to bring me up to speed.

1. Which group/sect/denomination/organization is it that believes Paul is a false teacher or a heretic?

Messianic Jews often don't like Paul, but they've been influenced by how the Reformers understood him. You'll find some self-loathing Calvinists who dislike Paul; they read him in an evil way, which they know is unacceptable, and tada, they create their own problem.

4. Is this all a big joke, or are you actually serious?

They think of themselves as serious, at any rate.

 

[plmarquette]

It is Paul that provides the "rest of the story" like Jesus said " you heard it said, but I say to you...."...
1 Corinthians 6.9...adultery, fornicators, lesbian, gay, transgendered....lazy, religious, unproductive....

you may be "born this way" , because of sin and birth defect, but you do not have to stay that way...God can restore, what the devil corrupted...

 

[Jase]

It is Paul that provides the "rest of the story" like Jesus said " you heard it said, but I say to you...."...
1 Corinthians 6.9...adultery, fornicators, lesbian, gay, transgendered....lazy, religious, unproductive....

you may be "born this way" , because of sin and birth defect, but you do not have to stay that way...God can restore, what the devil corrupted...

Wrong, 1 Corinthians says nothing about gay or transgender or lesbian in the originals (Paul didn't even know what gay or transgendered was). And God does not restore gays to straight. No evidence on earth he has ever done so.

It's not Paul that's the problem, it's people who abuse scripture to attack people they dislike while ignoring the original meaning.

 

[Thekla]

Wrong, 1 Corinthians says nothing about gay or transgender or lesbian in the originals (Paul didn't even know what gay or transgendered was). And God does not restore gays to straight. No evidence on earth he has ever done so.

It's not Paul that's the problem, it's people who abuse scripture to attack people they dislike while ignoring the original meaning.

Actually, Romans also is pretty clear (in the original language) on this matter; I do think that one should note that there are many human behaviors that are mentioned as sinful in the Scriptures (see Revelation as well). I also don't think that it is anyone's place to "rank sins".

 

[Jase]

Actually, Romans also is pretty clear (in the original language) on this matter; I do think that one should note that there are many human behaviors that are mentioned as sinful in the Scriptures (see Revelation as well). I also don't think that it is anyone's place to "rank sins".

Actually, Romans is quite complicated and does not refer to gays. Paul's audience was heterosexuals engaging in pagan prostitution and pederasty which were the most common forms of same-sex behavior in Rome and Greece. This is clearly evident by Paul referring to their worship of animals in that verse. That verse is based on the philosophy of Plato regarding unbridled passion and sexual obsession.

Paul did not know what gay people were, so he certainly wasn't condemning them.

I still stand by my point that it's less about Paul hatred, and more about Paul's words being used more than any other in the Bible as justification for hatred and prejudice.

 

[Thekla]

Actually, Romans is quite complicated and does not refer to gays. Paul's audience was heterosexuals engaging in pagan prostitution and pederasty which were the most common forms of same-sex behavior in Rome and Greece. This is clearly evident by Paul referring to their worship of animals in that verse. That verse is based on the philosophy of Plato regarding unbridled passion and sexual obsession.

Paul did not know what gay people were, so he certainly wasn't condemning them.

I still stand by my point that it's less about Paul hatred, and more about Paul's words being used more than any other in the Bible as justification for hatred and prejudice.

On the first paragraph, perhaps we can agree to disagree.

(The Theban Band is a then well known and highly regarded counter example to your claim. Philip of Macedon wept when he discovered their grave; they were legendary. As there was not the modern understanding of "gender identity" in the 1st century, the theory you propose seems to be reliant on viewing the 1st century through the 21st. One was "defined" through actions - the understanding of person that is presently accepted was also not a first century concept.)

On the latter points again, it is not ours to "rank" among the many sinful behaviors enumerated in Scripture.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Actually, Romans also is pretty clear (in the original language) on this matter; I do think that one should note that there are many human behaviors that are mentioned as sinful in the Scriptures (see Revelation as well). I also don't think that it is anyone's place to "rank sins".

Hi Thekla.....I have the book of Romans translated using 3 of the major greek texts put up over here for those interested
I hope one day to have time to put up the whole chapters of the book w/o verse #s...the Lord willing of course

http://www.christianforums.com/t7364825-59/#post51584575
LLOJs Book of Romans verse by verse study

 

[Kaitlin08]

Actually, Romans is quite complicated and does not refer to gays. Paul's audience was heterosexuals engaging in pagan prostitution and pederasty which were the most common forms of same-sex behavior in Rome and Greece. This is clearly evident by Paul referring to their worship of animals in that verse. That verse is based on the philosophy of Plato regarding unbridled passion and sexual obsession.

Paul did not know what gay people were, so he certainly wasn't condemning them.

I still stand by my point that it's less about Paul hatred, and more about Paul's words being used more than any other in the Bible as justification for hatred and prejudice.

This isn't a solution; it only pushes the problem back a little farther. The law of Moses says to kill two men who have sex; this must refer to gay people, even if the category of gay didn't exist back then. Paul, unfortunately, also meant to condemn gay people.

 

[Thekla]

Hi Thekla.....I have the book of Romans translated using 3 of the major greek texts put up over here for those interested
I hope one day to have time to put up the whole chapters of the book w/o verse #s...the Lord willing of course

http://www.christianforums.com/t7364825-59/#post51584575
LLOJs Book of Romans verse by verse study

Recommended

 

[Harry3142]

On a website where I was debating a few years ago it was JW's who were trying hard to get us to reject all of St. Paul's teachings. They wanted us to remove from the New Testament all of his epistles. The reason was that his theology acted as a brick wall to their own theology. And they are not alone in their hatred of him.

His teaching that we are saved by the grace of God rather than through our own efforts has been a 'thorn in the side' of certain radical denominations and sects that would have us believe that we need their guidance, including our absolute obedience to their ecclesiastical laws, in order to earn our salvation. If we believe that our salvation is due to God himself freely giving his righteousness to those who ask him for it, with the sole stipulation being that we accept as fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins and then was resurrected, the teaching of those that we need to obey them in order to earn our own salvation falls on deaf ears.

I don't see this attacking of St. Paul as a difference in theology; I see it as a power play. In order for certain denominations and sects to gain power and authority over those they wish to dominate, they must eliminate the teachings of St. Paul. He is simply too formidable an opponent to their desires for them to ignore him.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This isn't a solution; it only pushes the problem back a little farther. The law of Moses says to kill two men who have sex; this must refer to gay people, even if the category of gay didn't exist back then. Paul, unfortunately, also meant to condemn gay people.

Exodus also mentions "inappropriate behavior with animals"

Exodus 22:18 One being a sorceress/03784 kashaph not thou shall let live.
19 Every one laying with a beast to death shall be put to death.

Unused Tenn. inappropriate behavior with animals law put to test in new cases - USATODAY.com

NASHVILLE — Two years ago, the Tennessee legislature put into statute what most people assumed should go without saying — it is illegal to have sex with an animal in this state.

 

[Jase]

This isn't a solution; it only pushes the problem back a little farther. The law of Moses says to kill two men who have sex; this must refer to gay people, even if the category of gay didn't exist back then. Paul, unfortunately, also meant to condemn gay people.

No, the law of moses says a man forcing/deceiving another man to have sex in a woman's bed has committed a taboo. If it were strictly condemning gays, it wouldn't have added the clause "in beds/as with a woman". That adds a very important condition to that verse that you seem to be ignoring.

Not all men who have sex with other men are gay. Gay for pay inappropriate content and prison rape are 2 examples. I can assure, the entire US prison population is not gay.

Paul also had no intention of condemning gays, and I have no clue what you're basing that on. Paul's audience would have been almost exclusively heterosexual. But Greeks and Romans were very much into pederasty and prostitution. Both of which interfered with them seeking God - hence the Plato reference to unbridled passion.

Sexual orientation was not discovered until 1900 A.D. In Paul's day, everyone was assumed to be straight, but men also commonly had boy lovers or engaged in prostitution in addition to their wives and mistresses.

 

[Kaitlin08]

No, the law of moses says a man forcing/deceiving another man to have sex in a woman's bed has committed a taboo. If it were strictly condemning gays, it wouldn't have added the clause "in beds/as with a woman". That adds a very important condition to that verse that you seem to be ignoring.

I don't know what you mean by forcing/deceiving or by woman's bed. It would be difficult to deceive for very long. The clause "as a woman" presupposes that good men only have sex with women. This should be obvious. The words "in bed" are there because... people ordinarily have sex in a bed. Imagine that it had said "on the kitchen counter," pretending that kitchen counters existed then. Would we then find a loophole if two men had sex outdoors? But in that case we might also find a loophole with Corban.

Not all men who have sex with other men are gay. Gay for pay inappropriate content and prison rape are 2 examples. I can assure, the entire US prison population is not gay.

This doesn't matter at all, unless you think the law is condemning gay for pay or prison rape.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't know what you mean by forcing/deceiving or by woman's bed. It would be difficult to deceive for very long. The clause "as a woman" presupposes that good men only have sex with women. This should be obvious. The words "in bed" are there because... people ordinarily have sex in a bed. Imagine that it had said "on the kitchen counter," pretending that kitchen counters existed then. Would we then find a loophole if two men had sex outdoors? But in that case we might also find a loophole with Corban.

.

Some even do it on a couch/sofa

Matt 23:5 "All yet their works they are doing toward to be gazed to the men. For they are broadening their phylacteries/amulets and magnifying the tassels.
6 They are being fond yet of the first-couch/prwto-klisian <4411> in the dinners and the first seats/prwtokaqedriaV <4410> in the synagogues"

Revelation 2:22 Behold! I shall be casting her into a couch/klinhn <2825>, and of the ones adultering with her into great tribulation, if ever no they shall be reforming out of the works of her

2825. kline klee'-nay from 2827; a couch (for sleep, sickness, sitting or eating):--bed, table.

 

[Thekla]

Paul also had no intention of condemning gays, and I have no clue what you're basing that on. Paul's audience would have been almost exclusively heterosexual. But Greeks and Romans were very much into pederasty and prostitution. Both of which interfered with them seeking God - hence the Plato reference to unbridled passion.

Sexual orientation was not discovered until 1900 A.D. In Paul's day, everyone was assumed to be straight, but men also commonly had boy lovers or engaged in prostitution in addition to their wives and mistresses.

Again, per your own description, your view of Paul's teaching is anachronistic.

Marriage is theologically the re-uniting of Adam (humanity), who was "divided" into male (Adam) and female (Eve), as sacrament.

Akoitis means consort/husband (indicating a long-term relationship in general that is not the same as friendship), arsin means male.

The Theban band was made up exclusively of long term couples.

As before, one was defined/known through their actions; the concept of person was not the same. Thus a behavior was in some sense definitive.
(And there was no general extant term for "homosexual". Paul's term which can be translated as man-bedding or man-husband is per my knowledge likely to have originated with him. As for the meaning of the Levitical laws, see Jewish midrash etc.)

 

[Kaitlin08]

Some even do it on a couch/sofa

Matt 23:5 "All yet their works they are doing toward to be gazed to the men. For they are broadening their phylacteries/amulets and magnifying the tassels.
6 They are being fond yet of the first-couch/prwto-klisian <4411> in the dinners and the first seats/prwtokaqedriaV <4410> in the synagogues"

Revelation 2:22 Behold! I shall be casting her into a couch/klinhn <2825>, and of the ones adultering with her into great tribulation, if ever no they shall be reforming out of the works of her

2825. kline klee'-nay from 2827; a couch (for sleep, sickness, sitting or eating):--bed, table.

That's certainly more tame than the kitchen counter.

 

[Jase]

I don't know what you mean by forcing/deceiving or by woman's bed.

The word in that verse that refers to lying is shakab, which is used for forced/deceptive sex. Like when Lot's daughters got him drunk and raped him.

It would be difficult to deceive for very long. The clause "as a woman" presupposes that good men only have sex with women. This should be obvious. The words "in bed" are there because... people ordinarily have sex in a bed. Imagine that it had said "on the kitchen counter," pretending that kitchen counters existed then. Would we then find a loophole if two men had sex outdoors? But in that case we might also find a loophole with Corban.

You're ignoring the cultural context. In that society, men forced other woman to have sex. They made them submissive, because women were nothing more than property. That is the taboo (abomination is a mistranslation). The Caananites and Egyptians were worshipping pagan fertility goddesses, and during shrine prostitution men would make other men sexually submissive, as they did with women. That was very shameful for a man in those days, which is why it was deemed taboo (To'evah). To'evah in Hebrew refers to things the certain people/groups shouldn't do, because it's unfitting for that culture. It doesn't have the same connotation as abomination in English. Basically Moses was telling the Israelites not to follow Caananite pagan practices and make men submissive - men were the patriarchs, and were not meant to be treated like women.

Deuteronomy basically confirms this view, since it prohibits the Israelites from becoming harlots and shrine prostitutes.

This doesn't matter at all, unless you think the law is condemning gay for pay or prison rape.

No, I think the law is condemning pagan prostitution. But it matters, because you claimed all those who have sex with men are gay. That's not true, as evident by prisons and inappropriate content.