And why is that? Perhaps because the ruling group who became the RCC killed off all that didn't believe as they did? Today the church doesn't have the same power it once did.
It was never the ruling group who became the RCC that killed them off, as other Jewish believers in Messiah NEVER agreed nor supported them and took beef with them when it came to the many twistings of what Yeshua/the Torah said---and ironically, many of the Ebionites fighting back in the name of "keeping the Torah" when they didn't even do that much. More has already been discussed on the issue before on various aspects of Ebionite Christianity (as seen
here and
here in #
91 ,#
156 and #
157 )
Ultimately, what it comes to is that there's a renewal of Ebioniote Jewish ideology---seperate from what Messianic Judaism advocates---and that renewal is being pushed when it comes to the attempts at denouncing Paul or anyone supporting him even though what he said was never seperate from the apostles or what Christ noted and one has to make a host of false arguments to claim otherwise.
And to say that the true believers believe Paul is slanderous to them who Love HaShem and his son. There is no where in all 66 books that says to be a true believer one must believe what Paul taught.
One, it should be noted that the scriptures never advocated for 66 books alone since there were always more books besides that. The 66 book logic is a Protestant ideology that the early believers never shared when it came to the scriptures they supported, be it Macabees or the Testament of Moses (quoted in the Book of Jude) or the Book of Enoch (also quoted in the Book of Jude concerning Enoch's prophecy), Epistle of Barnabas (as Ethiopian Christians of Eastern Orthodoxy/Eastern Christianity do in consistency with what the Church Fathers noted),
Shepherd of Hermas and a host of others (more discussed here in #
89 #
336 and #
410 ,
here,
here,
here,
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). Other writings besides that, with those in Eastern Christianity/Eastern Orthodoxy (which is seperate entirely from Catholicism, for those arguing that it's only Protestants and Catholics) accepting other works as well. Barnabas, like I. Clement and Hermas, became canonical in some circles: it is quoted by Clement of Alexandria as Scripture. Technically, for the Jewish people, they didn't even have a cannon necessarily in the days of Christ/the apostles outside of the Tanak (and even that was debated as it what counted in the Writings)...and later, all the early believers had in addition were the Epistles, be it the General Epistles or the Pauline ones to give guidance. Thus, talking of a unified cannon as if it's only 66 can be problematic.....especially when considering that the Lord never promised or said he'd ONLY speak through 66 books anyhow.
Two, as it concerns accuracy, I'd say slanderous is when there are multiple things brought up against Paul that he never advocated and that are false scenarios. The same ideologies and arguments have been applied equally to every other apostle, from Peter to John and others, when it comes to others saying that the apostles already were out of line with the Torah for proclaiming that a man was God and that the man known as Yeshua brought something radically different than what was done before......and there's more than enough reason why people choose to not even believe in Christ and go into full blown Judaism when they see the arguments laying the foundation for disbelieving the NT. One can't denounc against Paul selectively and not lay the foundation for having the rest of the NT taken apart. One of the reasons why the moderators of the forum and CF have noted repeatedly where it is not allowed for others to openly denounce Paul on the forum since that's not what they/other believers stand for.....and the fact that there are attempts to do so again is dishonorable toward what has been asked of us.
I seriously wonder how the slippery slope of ignoring Paul/treating him as if he can be ignored can be taken seriously without ever questioning what to do with other texts. One would have to ignore the Gospel of Luke (which was made by the very man accompanying Paul, advocating for His ministry/Christ's approval of it and DISCUSSING its history in the Book of Acts).
One could also say that the other scriptures supporting Paul by the other apostles must be thrown out, as is the case with Peter---the one whom Christ said in Matthew 16 and John 21 he'd build the Church upon/gave leadership of it to. II Peter 3:15-16 shows where Peter told the believers to listen to/support Paul. By the time of Peter's writing, Paul's letters already had a widespread reputation....and Peter spoke of Paul's letters as if they were on the same level as with the other "Scriptures." And although Paul emphasized salvation by grace, not law, Peter preferred to talk about Christian service and life. The two men did not contradict one another and always had each other in high esteem.....and when false teachers tried to intentionally misuse Paul's writings by distorting them to condone lawlessness (which Paul condemned in Romans 6:15), Peter spoke clearly on it being wrong and echoed many of the same things that Paul said plainly.
II Peter 3:10
15 Bear in mind that our Lords patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
Of course, the latest thing is claiming that I and II Peter were forgeries and therefore there's no way that Peter would ever be supporting Paul in either leadership or influence of the Church. That's always an interesting discussion to get involved---and thankfully, it has not been the case that it hasn't been addressed. For some good articles on such:
With Peter in His blantant support of Paul, it seems odd whenever there's claim that one should accept what Peter said and then treat what Paul wrote as if its a matter of simple commentary that can be dismissed. Even with saying that one should only go with what Yeshua did, the reality is that what Yeshua did was directly IN LINE with the example of Paul---and thus, its not really accurate when trying to make it out as if Paul was counter to Christ since they both had the same mindset---and if taking the text of Acts literally, then ONE MUST acknowledge where Acts 9-10 makes clear that Christ appeared to Paul and said that He would use Him for his glory in reaching out to the Gentiles. One cannot be selective in saying that wish to take the book of Acts/the history of the Church in action seriously...and yet be selective with what they BELIEVE about it.
Taking it further, Something I always found interesting is how often there seems to be a focus upon Paul---as if he was unique in what he advocated on many points when it comes to things many take issue with such as love being the fulfillment of the law/things others equate to being "anti-Torah"---and yet, with other books in the Bible, they seem to be even more radical than Paul and yet they're left alone.
Specifically, I'm reminded of
the Johannine Epistles, which have long been recognised as contributing a vital element to the theology of the New Testament. Usually it is to the Gospel (Gospel of John) that the reader turns first in order to explore that contribution. The First Epistle is treated as a supplement, while 2 and 3 John - on account of their brevity - receive little attention. But the
things noted in Johannine theology are very powerful when it comes to clarifying what it means to either.
The three letters of John after the Gospel He wrote are among the shooter books in the New Testament. In fact, 2nd and 3rd John are the shortest books in the New Testament. This point quite often leads us to gauge them as being of lesser importance and results in neglect on our part...but they are far more.
It often seems that people try to place both Paul and the other apostles into opposition with each other continually...but Johanine theology doesn't seem to support that. In example, Paul made exceptionally clear that he only thing that counts is
faith expressing itself through love (
Galatians 5:5-7,
Romans 13:7-9, ,
Galatians 6:1-3, etc )---and even the other apostles echoed this same concept in their epistles, such as John when he summed up God's commands/Torah into simply LOVING your neighbor (
1 John 4:20-21 ,
1 John 3:22-24, )
2 John 1:6
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
For some good review:
As they are used JUST as much as the Pauline Epistles when it comes to formulating doctrine within Christianity, its odd to see so many focus upon interpreting Paul...for there would still be others similar to His interpretations that one would need to deal with.
James, the brother of Jesus, noted the same exact concept when it came to demonstrating one's heart for the Lord by their deeds---and his stance was that the ULTIMATE expression of devotion to the Lord was whether or not one truly loved their neighbor (
James 2:8 ), prior to any kind of discussion on faith/works...and even his stance of works/faith went directly in line with what Paul noted.
IMHO, if people continually focus upon Paul, it does seem that there should be a focus on others as well
And ultimately, much of the arguments against Paul have zero to do with Messianic Judaism or even Jewish culture....and they ultimately equate to people MAKING IT UP as they go along and not really having any ground for discussing trusting in scripture.
And numbers are not a true example of anyone's credentials as to be from G-d.
Indeed, although numbers were never argued as an example of credentials alone. The argument, however, cannot be applied consistently when it comes to talking on the need of the Jewish people to return to Messiah en masse and ignoring where the Bible focused on numbers in noting repeatedly where the Lord ADDED to their numbers because of them walking right with him.
- How many people attend Benny Hinn's revivals?
- How many people attend those big, 'feel good' Mega-churches. like the one in Lakewood,Texas? they preach a lot of love too.
- How about Todd Bentley? How many 'true believers' flocked to his revival meeting to 'experience and receive the Holy Spirit', mainly by kicking them in the face, or stomach, knocking them on the ground to roll around, laughing hysterically, and modestly, like animals? They lined up from around the world to do so.
Great numbers, but true believers? not what G-d says...
Minus the fact that no one knows the salvation of all in any of the churches you listed, just as believers in Messiah have been found ALL OVER THE Place and seeking Him and the Lord ultimately knows those who are his, one really has no credible way of assuming that all in certain churches must not be true believers anymore than others are believers simply because they speak of loving Torah/GOD..even when a host of things are done that are nowhere near what God asked for and judgements toward other believers are still given.
We are to question, it doesn't matter who it is, we are responsible for using the gifts he gave us, not to our betterment, but for our protection.
And there are believers, and followers. There
Indeed. The same thing applies as it concerns those who make it a habit of denouncing Paul (as many can be sincere believers and yet still make a multitude of errors in the process that damage the Faith). It is because of that reason that Jewish believers did not tolerate it in the early church---and still don't today