Why do some people think Apostle Paul is evil?

※※♡Rose○Gold○Macaron♡※※

Jesus is sweeter than macarons.
Mar 12, 2020
206
70
20
Carterville Illinois
✟36,090.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I am going to try to keep my posts not scary and bizarre, so let's all take a VERY long break from posting weird stuff, and allow me to post something normal. I heard of some Christians saying that Apostle Paul was not a true Christian or something like that, how "Jesus warned us about Paul" or something. I don't get it. Why do they think that? Is anyone aware of this situation? Paul was a great guy who preached about love, and he told us that we shouldn't go on sinning, at least I think Paul was the one who wrote Romans 6:1-3. So, what's up with the people who think this? Sorry if I sound rude, but I really do not understand what was going on. Some guy on a website said that the people who claimed he was evil didn't understand his writings or whatever he said.
 

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
There are two different types of objection. One is from people who want to keep the Law, or at least aspects of it. That's more likely to be the form you see in CF. The other is from people who have no interest in reestablishing the Law, but observe that there are significant differences between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught.

The second is certainly true, but Christians have traditionally said that it's because Paul wrote after the resurrection, to a different audience than Jesus'. People disagree whether that's a sufficient explanation.

The obvious followup question is "what differences?" Here are some, though by no means all:
  • Jesus taught about the Kingdom, and pointed people to God rather than himself. Paul taught about Jesus.
  • Paul says virtually nothing about Jesus except that he was crucified and resurrected.
  • Jesus rejected the Pharisees' purity-oriented ethics. Paul shows some signs of it.
  • When asked about salvation, Jesus pointed to behavior, Paul to faith.
These statements all oversimplify the real issues, but even so I think there are some differences.

I'm speaking here of modern objections to Paul. In this forum it might be more relevant to ask about ancient objections. I'm probably not the right person to answer that.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
There are two different types of objection. One is from people who want to keep the Law, or at least aspects of it. That's more likely to be the form you see in CF. The other is from people who have no interest in reestablishing the Law, but observe that there are significant differences between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught.

The second is certainly true, but Christians have traditionally said that it's because Paul wrote after the resurrection, to a different audience than Jesus'. People disagree whether that's a sufficient explanation.

The obvious followup question is "what differences?" Here are some, though by no means all:
  • Jesus taught about the Kingdom, and pointed people to God rather than himself. Paul taught about Jesus.
  • Paul says virtually nothing about Jesus except that he was crucified and resurrected.
  • Jesus rejected the Pharisees' purity-oriented ethics. Paul shows some signs of it.
  • When asked about salvation, Jesus pointed to behavior, Paul to faith.
These statements all oversimplify the real issues, but even so I think there are some differences.

I'm speaking here of modern objections to Paul. In this forum it might be more relevant to ask about ancient objections. I'm probably not the right person to answer that.
If you read what religious historians say online, you will often find them saying that Jesus emphasized behavior and Paul emphasized faith. There is little doubt, if any, that this is true.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am going to try to keep my posts not scary and bizarre, so let's all take a VERY long break from posting weird stuff, and allow me to post something normal. I heard of some Christians saying that Apostle Paul was not a true Christian or something like that, how "Jesus warned us about Paul" or something. I don't get it. Why do they think that? Is anyone aware of this situation? Paul was a great guy who preached about love, and he told us that we shouldn't go on sinning, at least I think Paul was the one who wrote Romans 6:1-3. So, what's up with the people who think this? Sorry if I sound rude, but I really do not understand what was going on. Some guy on a website said that the people who claimed he was evil didn't understand his writings or whatever he said.

At the end of his lifetime, Paul basically stated that his gospel of grace, which he defended passionately in Galatians 1 and 2, have been abandoned by almost everyone he knows.

All these verses are found in 2 Timothy.

At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.

This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

14Alexander the coppersmith did great harm to me. The Lord will repay him according to his deeds. 15You too should beware of him, for he has vigorously opposed our message.

So yes, Paul was strongly opposed by Judaizers even during this lifetime.

As for now, I think those churches who preach strongly from the 4 gospels, aka red letter Christians, would largely ignore Paul or understand Paul's words from Jesus's words from Matthew to John.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
As for now, I think those churches who preach strongly from the 4 gospels, aka red letter Christians, would largely ignore Paul or understand Paul's words from Jesus's words from Matthew to John.
The mainline prioritizes Jesus, but we certainly do not ignore Paul. We do accept justification by faith, but you have to be careful in your exegesis of both Paul and Jesus to avoid contradiction.
 
Upvote 0

Aussie Pete

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 14, 2019
9,081
8,268
Frankston
Visit site
✟727,030.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
I am going to try to keep my posts not scary and bizarre, so let's all take a VERY long break from posting weird stuff, and allow me to post something normal. I heard of some Christians saying that Apostle Paul was not a true Christian or something like that, how "Jesus warned us about Paul" or something. I don't get it. Why do they think that? Is anyone aware of this situation? Paul was a great guy who preached about love, and he told us that we shouldn't go on sinning, at least I think Paul was the one who wrote Romans 6:1-3. So, what's up with the people who think this? Sorry if I sound rude, but I really do not understand what was going on. Some guy on a website said that the people who claimed he was evil didn't understand his writings or whatever he said.
Some people are deluded and deceived. If you read Paul from the point of view of the world (a big mistake) you will find something to criticise. Funny, they did the same with Lord Jesus. If you read Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you will be edified and blessed.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,774
1,309
sg
✟214,848.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The mainline prioritizes Jesus, but we certainly do not ignore Paul. We do accept justification by faith, but you have to be careful in your exegesis of both Paul and Jesus to avoid contradiction.

For me, Jesus earthly ministry was strictly directed to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Romans 15:8, Matthew 15:24)

We former gentiles can learn from his ministry then, just as we can learn a lot from the OT scripture, but we don't regard those instructions as directed TO us.

When Jesus rose from the dead, he saved Paul and appointed him as "The apostle to the Gentiles". The mystery doctrine Jesus revealed to him, was directed TO us. Our doctrine is to be taken from Romans to Philemon.

Once you have that perspective, everything becomes clear.
 
Upvote 0

St_Worm2

Simul Justus et Peccator
Supporter
Jan 28, 2002
27,247
45,335
67
✟2,916,149.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I am going to try to keep my posts not scary and bizarre, so let's all take a VERY long break from posting weird stuff, and allow me to post something normal. I heard of some Christians saying that Apostle Paul was not a true Christian or something like that, how "Jesus warned us about Paul" or something. I don't get it. Why do they think that? Is anyone aware of this situation? Paul was a great guy who preached about love, and he told us that we shouldn't go on sinning, at least I think Paul was the one who wrote Romans 6:1-3. So, what's up with the people who think this? Sorry if I sound rude, but I really do not understand what was going on. Some guy on a website said that the people who claimed he was evil didn't understand his writings or whatever he said.
Hello BigBowBoi, I've found that there are many who do not like St. Paul because they do not like what he has to say about their ongoing/unrepentant sin (often believing that Jesus holds a different opinion about it). So they attack his Epistles as being contradictory to the teachings of Jesus.

While it's also true that Jesus (who was born, lived and died under the law) most often taught as one under the law, He also taught us about the gracious salvation through faith that was coming in its fullness in very short order.

For instance, compare these two, similar statements from Jesus and Paul concerning the subject of our salvation.

John 5
24 He who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Romans 10
9 If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

It is also true (as has already been mentioned above), that our modern legalists are never happy with quite a bit of what Paul has to say and when pressed, often tell us that Paul needs to be understood in the light of what Jesus taught (when what they are really saying is that Paul needs to be understood in the "light" of their own, legalistic presuppositions, their own ~misunderstandings~ of what the Lord Jesus actually taught :().

--David

John 3
16 God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ivan Hlavanda

Well-Known Member
Mar 27, 2020
1,094
726
31
York
✟83,931.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
people who claimed he was evil

people who can't see that apostle Paul (or any other apostle or prophet in the Bible) was clearly reborn in spirit are still sadly controlled by sin. sadly there's still many Christians who are picking things in the Bible to their liking, or are dismissing things they don't like or they simply twist words. accept the Bible as a whole or not, there's nothing between, it's a holy word of God. don't add to it, don't remove things, don't approach it with your own theory. if you don't like certain parts, or they make you angry because they reflect on you that's a problem with you and not the Bible. just by seeing the sheer number of Christians who don't take Bible as a whole makes me sad because sin is still controlling their life.
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
people who claimed he was evil
People also were able to see Jesus to be evil, and they crucified Jesus who is God's own Son; so of course people can see Paul as being evil. They can do this because of how they are.

The love meaning of Jesus does not contradict the love meaning of Paul . . . and James and Peter and Jude and John.

But how we humans understand can be contradictory . . . because of how we are.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I heard of some Christians saying that Apostle Paul was not a true Christian or something like that

There is indeed an "anti-Paul brigade," who don't like what Paul wrote.

However, the CF rules say "Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum)."

I think that means that the anti-Paul brigade can't respond here.

Personally, I think that the anti-Paul brigade is very, very wrong.
 
Upvote 0

HTacianas

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2018
8,459
8,968
Florida
✟321,876.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I am going to try to keep my posts not scary and bizarre, so let's all take a VERY long break from posting weird stuff, and allow me to post something normal. I heard of some Christians saying that Apostle Paul was not a true Christian or something like that, how "Jesus warned us about Paul" or something. I don't get it. Why do they think that? Is anyone aware of this situation? Paul was a great guy who preached about love, and he told us that we shouldn't go on sinning, at least I think Paul was the one who wrote Romans 6:1-3. So, what's up with the people who think this? Sorry if I sound rude, but I really do not understand what was going on. Some guy on a website said that the people who claimed he was evil didn't understand his writings or whatever he said.

There are people who claim that, in effect, all Christians should follow all of the Jewish law but that Paul taught otherwise. There is no truth to it.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
you will often find them saying that Jesus emphasized behavior and Paul emphasized faith.

I count 116 verses with the word "believe" in the gospels.

I don't think "Jesus emphasized behavior and Paul emphasized faith" is at all true.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: St_Worm2
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
There are three verses in Acts that state Paul spent most of his time teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. If the gentiles who built their little worldly empire of an institutionalised religion and church, had included those writings which must have existed, rather than convenient epistles that corresponded with how to built a religion, there might not be any division seen between Paul and Jesus' teachings, both being focused on the Kingdom. The Gentiles were the ones guilty of the separation, not only of the two men but between Gentile and Jew even though we were to be as one.

Acts 19:8 He (Paul) went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the Kingdom of God

Acts 28: 23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

Acts 28: 30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, 31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Acts 19:8 He (Paul) went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the Kingdom of God

Acts 28:23 He expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets
 
Upvote 0

Broken Fence

God with us!
Supporter
May 1, 2020
1,837
1,424
TX to New Heaven, New Earth, New Jerusalem
✟142,605.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Greetings and Salutations,
When I read Paul's epistles I see that you can't sin willfully and expect to go to heaven. Sanctification of The Holy Spirit falls right inline with what Jesus says. Whatever is not done by faith is sin, Paul says. Jesus says take no thought of your life. Same exact thing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Greetings and Salutations,
When I read Paul's epistles I see that you can't sin willfully and expect to go to heaven. Sanctification of The Holy Spirit falls right inline with what Jesus says. Whatever is not done by faith is sin, Paul says. Jesus says take no thought of your life. Same exact thing.
Not exactly the same. Jesus' teaching about judgement is based on actions, but mostly on showing fruit and accepting the Gospel. Jesus doesn't talk about sin except forgiving it. Paul does, as you say, speak a lot more about sin. He also sees holiness as a goal, where Jesus never calls a human holy or sets it up as an objective.

Because probably people reading this thread haven't seen the other one, I'm going to repeat something I posted elsewhere:

Jesus taught obedience, not holiness. There’s a difference. Purity and holiness were the ideals of the Pharisees. Purity is your accomplishment. People work to achieve it, and are worried about doing questionable things, even if they might help someone, because it might make them impure.

That's the real meaning of the parable of the good Samaritan. "passed by on the other side. Luke uses a rare doubly compounded vb., anti-parerchesthai, another sense of which is found in Wis 16:10. The implication of his passing by is to avoid contamination by contact with or proximity to a dead body." (commentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible) The problem with the priest and Levite wasn't that they were hard-hearted, but that their purity requirements kept them from becoming involved with the victim.

Obedience looks only to Jesus and to the good of our neighbor. It doesn’t imagine that in doing that we achieve anything for ourselves. We don’t become “holy” that way.

“So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’ ” (Luke 17:10)

Furthermore, improving morals was never Jesus’ goal. Jewish morals were already if anything too strict. His goal was to reconcile us to God and to each other, because he knew that in the end behavior that really furthers the ends of the Kingdom comes from grateful people who are forgiven, not people who are afraid of becoming impure.

I think Paul's doctrine of justification by faith corresponds to Jesus' emphasis. But Paul does use some of the categories that Jesus avoided.
 
Upvote 0

Broken Fence

God with us!
Supporter
May 1, 2020
1,837
1,424
TX to New Heaven, New Earth, New Jerusalem
✟142,605.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Not exactly the same. Jesus' teaching about judgement is based on actions, but mostly on showing fruit and accepting the Gospel. Jesus doesn't talk about sin except forgiving it. Paul does, as you say, speak a lot more about sin. He also sees holiness as a goal, where Jesus never calls a human holy or sets it up as an objective.

Because probably people reading this thread haven't seen the other one, I'm going to repeat something I posted elsewhere:

Jesus taught obedience, not holiness. There’s a difference. Purity and holiness were the ideals of the Pharisees. Purity is your accomplishment. People work to achieve it, and are worried about doing questionable things, even if they might help someone, because it might make them impure.

That's the real meaning of the parable of the good Samaritan. "passed by on the other side. Luke uses a rare doubly compounded vb., anti-parerchesthai, another sense of which is found in Wis 16:10. The implication of his passing by is to avoid contamination by contact with or proximity to a dead body." (commentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible) The problem with the priest and Levite wasn't that they were hard-hearted, but that their purity requirements kept them from becoming involved with the victim.

Obedience looks only to Jesus and to the good of our neighbor. It doesn’t imagine that in doing that we achieve anything for ourselves. We don’t become “holy” that way.

“So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’ ” (Luke 17:10)

Furthermore, improving morals was never Jesus’ goal. Jewish morals were already if anything too strict. His goal was to reconcile us to God and to each other, because he knew that in the end behavior that really furthers the ends of the Kingdom comes from grateful people who are forgiven, not people who are afraid of becoming impure.

I think Paul's doctrine of justification by faith corresponds to Jesus' emphasis. But Paul does use some of the categories that Jesus avoided.
I thought Paul refered to fruits of The Spirit. How by walking in The Spirit we would not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. We obey God, His law written upon our hearts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I thought Paul refered to fruits of The Spirit. How by walking in The Spirit we to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. We obey God, His law written upon our hearts.
He did. While completely different terminology, I think that roughly corresponds to Jesus' emphasis. But Jesus would never have used language like this:

"Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God" (2 Cor 7:1)

or

"And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit;" (1 Cor 7:34)

Nor did Jesus have the emphasis on sexual immorality that Paul did.

On your quotation: Jesus used "lust" only once (Mat 5:28), where it almost certainly referred to an intent to commit adultery. "Lusts of the flesh" is not language he would likely have used. While Paul didn't mean flesh literally (he was no Gnostic), still use of the term flesh to indicate our dark side is not something Jesus would have used.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Broken Fence
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I think Paul's justification by faith, and emphasis on the Holy Spirit places him on Jesus' side of the disagreement with the Pharisees. Still, his use of holiness and purity allowed him to be cited to support the moralism of the next generation of Christians, and of many Christians today.

There are several reasons one might guess for the difference in approach between Paul and Jesus:
  • Jesus didn't need to teach morality. He was speaking to Jews who had clear ideas, and were if anything too moralistic. Paul, however, was dealing with converts from a Roman culture with very different standards. (There is an objection to this. Many early Christian converts were from the "God-fearers", people who hung around synagogues but were never circumcised. They would still know and value Jewish ethics. However 1 Cor 6:11 implies that many in his audience were new to his Jewish Christian ethics.)
  • While Paul does allude to teachings from Jesus in a number of places, the only time he quotes him is in the words of institution. Is it possible that he knew the substance of Jesus' teaching but not his actual words? Paul makes a point of his independence from the people who would have most likely transmitted that.
  • Perhaps Paul had residual influences from his background as a Pharisee.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Jesus didn't need to teach morality
But He did with His Gospel of the Kingdom, comparing the self serving ways of man with the all serving ways of God.

Is it possible that he knew the substance of Jesus' teaching but not his actual words?
As my thgree verses above show, he taught the Gospel of the Kingdom continually,. Something the later gentile church officiators chose to conveniently leave out no doubt as it conflicted with the direction they were going in returning Christianity to the world of man.
 
Upvote 0