Why is there hatred of St. Paul?

[fhansen]

That the Lord Jesus came to abolish obedience and promote love.[/QUOT

Actually Jesus raised the standard even higher, by telling us that people who only follow the rules by external actions aren't doing enough-and are hypocritical. We must be clean on the inside first He tells us, then the outside follows suit, obeying for the right reasons. And the only way to become clean on the inside is to turn to God in humility, and He does the cleansing, the forgiving, the making new creations of us. Only with the help of grace can we become people who love as we should, and then love fulfills the law and excludes sin and does good for others by its nature. Paul also knew that love was the central aspect of man's righteousness and of the Christian faith; read 1 Cor 13, for one. Also Rom 13:8-10.

A major link between Paul and Jesus is that one must believe in the Father and the Son and their promises to us, and Jesus came to reveal God to an extent that He'd never been revealed before, a God we could truly believe in, who was fully worthy of our faith. And so we must know Him in order to believe, so we can then place our hope and trust in Him and ultimately love Him. This is the object of faith.
"Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3

Faith is the doorway to righteousness (it justifies us) because faith is the doorway to God who is our righteousness, and who, alone, can make us just or righteous. Jesus didn't come to abolish either obedience or the Law (He even tells us so in Matt 5:17), rather He came to show and bring us to a place where we'll obey for the right reason. A quote from Basil of Cesarea, a 4th century bishop, is related to this:

"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

 

[Pavel Mosko]

It has been present since old times since he had to defend his apostleship and keeps coming not only from Jews, Muslims, and atheists but even from people who called themselves Christians. I don't think any of the Apostles is as controversial as him.

Most those groups dislike him for different reasons, with Muslims I'm not sure what your alluding to.


Jews don't like the gentile friendly approach even seeing it as corrupting their tradition with Hellenism etc.

Atheists I'm sure do not appreciate his strong stance on sexual morals, the role of women etc. And liberal Christians would be much the same on that.

 

[Not David]

Most those groups dislike him for different reasons, with Muslims I'm not sure what your alluding to.


Jews don't like the gentile friendly approach even seeing it as corrupting their tradition with Hellenism etc.

Atheists I'm sure do not appreciate his strong stance on sexual morals, the role of women etc. And liberal Christians would be much the same on that.

According to Wikipedia:
Muslim views
Muslims have long believed that Paul purposefully corrupted the original revealed teachings of Jesus,[213][214][215] through the introduction of such elements as paganism,[216] the making of Christianity into a theology of the cross,[217] and introducing original sin and the need for redemption.[218]

Sayf ibn Umar claimed that certain rabbis persuaded Paul to deliberately misguide early Christians by introducing what Ibn Hazm viewed as objectionable doctrines into Christianity.[219][220] Ibn Hazm repeated Sayf's claims.[221] Rabbi Jacob Qirqisani also believed that Paul created Christianity by introducing the doctrine of Trinity.[219]Paul has been criticized by some modern Muslim thinkers. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas wrote that Paul misrepresented the message of Jesus,[213] and Rashid Rida accused Paul of introducing shirk (polytheism) into Christianity.[222] Mohammad Ali Jouhar quoted Adolf von Harnack's critical writings of Paul.[223]

In Sunni Muslim polemics, Paul plays the same role (of deliberately corrupting the early teachings of Jesus) as a later Jew, Abdullah ibn Saba', would play in seeking to destroy the message of Islam from within (by introducing proto-Shi'ite beliefs).[224][225][220] Among those who supported this view were scholars Ibn Taymiyyah (who believed while Paul ultimately succeeded, Ibn Saba failed) and Ibn Hazm (who claimed that the Jews even admitted to Paul's sinister purpose).[226]

 

[Not David]

Also hated by a US Father:
Among the critics of Paul the Apostle was Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, who wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."[227] Christian anarchists Leo Tolstoy[228] and Ammon Hennacy[229] take a similar view.

 

[Halbhh]

It has been present since old times since he had to defend his apostleship and keeps coming not only from Jews, Muslims, and atheists but even from people who called themselves Christians. I don't think any of the Apostles is as controversial as him.

Paul was kinda intense, wasn't he. I mean, pursuing Christians unto death as Saul of Tarsus, and then later, his first preaching, in Damascus, he has to be let down over the wall in a basket in the night, since he has so incited the locals they want to murder him (though perhaps under color of Law). He confronts Peter over Peter's sin of caving to social pressure over the uncircumsized. It's all intense.

 

[Albion]

You have good points there, but when it comes to why it is that he draws such opposition from people who identify as Christians, none of them seems to be the reason they are antagonistic towards Paul.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Thread cleaned up.
The topic of this thread is the Apostle Paul,
Not a debate about which denomination is better.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[ewq1938]

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Galatians 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
Galatians 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Galatians 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.


People usually hate/dislike Paul because of what he said about the law of Moses.

 

[~Zao~]

As St. Paul wrote much of the material that would go on to form the standard NT canon, the reasons for the dislike of the apostle among non-Christians should be obvious, as they disagree with our religion and think it to be false.

And among Christians, too, I think it is also obvious, although a bit different: St. Paul said many things in his epistles which seem to rub certain Christian people or traditions in the wrong way. I remember sitting in on some RCIA classes back when I was Roman Catholic and the women who taught it (in consultation with the priest, but he rarely showed up himself; when he did, they were silent) got to the portion of St. Paul's epistle to the Corinthians when the apostle writes that women should keep silent in the churches. Obviously, the RCC in our day has not really kept to this rule (depending on how it is interpreted, of course), as women may do the readings and serve as Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist in many parishes, and I think one of the women realized that the students would notice this and just sort of quickly laughed it off and said "Heh...you know, that Paul had a lot of strong opinions, and maybe some trouble with women..."

I remember being shocked and not sure how to respond, because of course these women were in charge of teaching the acolytes, so I didn't want to start a scene or anything. So I just thought "Well, that's her way of dealing with that verse" (which it was) and moved on as she did. Still, looking back on it...I dunno...

But I think the sort of sentiment that she voiced is a common enough one among many Christians who would like to see themselves and therefore their religion as more egalitarian than a bare reading of that verse or certain other verses would suggest. So of course since those verses come from St. Paul's epistles, they are attributed to his thinking (read: his misogyny), and he is degraded in their minds as a result. It's sad, but I think that's what I saw at work, and have seen at work since then among Christians who are more 'cutting-edge' and progressive than I apparently am. (And I don't even see that followed as literally in my Church as in maybe some other churches, particularly Protestant ones that might read everything incredibly literally; priest's wives, nuns, and so on have given talks in our churches with the blessings of the clergy -- they just don't play a clerical role of any kind in the liturgy outside of their place as laywomen unless they're abbesses or deaconesses at a monastery, in the same way that me being a man doesn't entitle me to give the deacon's responses or something, since I'm a layman. I dunno.)

they are attributed to his thinking (read: his misogyny), and he is degraded in their minds as a result. It's sad

You have said the truth but the degraded outlook is toward those who misrepresent Paul for the fact that his objective was toward grace and unity. Period. That was his message. Those who can understand resent being misplaced from the spirit and cast into a pretentious role of infamy.

 

[Pedra]

Paul was kinda intense, wasn't he. I mean, pursuing Christians unto death as Saul of Tarsus, and then later, his first preaching, in Damascus, he has to be let down over the wall in a basket in the night, since he has so incited the locals they want to murder him (though perhaps under color of Law). He confronts Peter over Peter's sin of caving to social pressure over the uncircumsized. It's all intense.

I would not use that word as as it puts the wrong spin on Paul in my view.
Paul was a highly educated Jew, he had the language skills and a knew understanding to speak with power & conviction. He was confronted face to face with the ascended Lord Jesus & was hand picked by the Lord to be one of his Apostles to preach the gospel. He was a humbled man, convicted, chosen by God, Holy Spirit filled, devoted and courageous & desired so deeply with a burden that his fellow Jews would realize their error and be saved. Peter needed a a righteous servant of Christ, like Paul to correct him, & this was all pre-known & over-seen by our Lord Jesus. Paul was taken to heaven & shown things he was not to divulge and his epistles are amazing. Our Lord picked Paul for a reason. He has been called the greatest evangelist.

 

[Halbhh]

I would not use that word as as it puts the wrong spin on Paul in my view.
Paul was a highly educated Jew, he had the language skills and a knew understanding to speak with power & conviction. He was confronted face to face with the ascended Lord Jesus & was hand picked by the Lord to be one of his Apostles to preach the gospel. He was a humbled man, convicted, chosen by God, Holy Spirit filled, devoted and courageous & desired so deeply with a burden that his fellow Jews would realize their error and be saved. Peter needed a a righteous servant of Christ, like Paul to correct him, & this was all pre-known & over-seen by our Lord Jesus. Paul was taken to heaven & shown things he was not to divulge and his epistles are amazing. Our Lord picked Paul for a reason. He has been called the greatest evangelist.

I would not either! What's the context and sense of meaning in my post? I should have made that more clear. The post you quoted was responding to the OP, which asks: "Why is there hatred of St. Paul?"

Hate is an emotion of course, and not purely rational.

Of course, there isn't a lot of hate for Paul now a days, and now a days it's not just unusual, but actually outright rare I think. Perhaps less than 1/10 of 1% of believers I'd guess. A tiny number of people so that if not for a global forum somewhere online, you'd have trouble even finding one person in your whole life that hates Paul.

But...back when Paul evangelized it was very different, and there were plenty that hated him.

Why is that?
Christ already answered that so clearly in John chapter 15. Any one of us can learn that real reason, the only real reason.

Do I think Paul was too intense? Not at all! Instead, he is so well spoken and with the aid of the Spirit has communicated in ways that any of us should be inspired by, to do better ourselves. I really like your post about Paul's good qualities, which he gained by the work of the Spirit in him. What a wonderful example to us.

Context, context, context, as I say too often. I need to be sure I give enough also, lol.

By the way, nice to meet you! Are you in the states?

 

[Pedra]

You have said the truth but the degraded outlook is toward those who misrepresent Paul for the fact that his objective was toward grace and unity. Period. That was his message. Those who can understand resent being misplaced from the spirit and cast into a pretentious role of infamy.

Belonging to a physical church does not make you a true believer. We must not pretend Paul's objective was only grace and unity. That is simply not true, this is not the only thing he taught or stressed and we must keep Paul's teachings in context of the scriptures. Paul & others were seeding groups of believers & he was travelling amongst them, he needed to remind them of what united them- the grace of God by the washing away of their sins by the blood of Jesus & remind them what they had been taught.

 

[Albion]

I would not either! What's the context and sense of meaning in my post? I should have made that more clear. I was responding to the OP, which asks: "Why is there hatred of St. Paul?"

Hate is an emotion of course, and not purely rational.

Of course, there isn't a lot of hate for Paul now a days, and now a days it's not just unusual, but actually outright rare I think. Perhaps less than 1/10 of 1% of believers I'd guess. A tiny number of people so that if not for a global forum somewhere online, you'd have trouble even finding one person in your whole life that hates Paul. But...back when Paul evangelized it was very different, and there were plenty that hated him.

Do I think Paul was too intense? Not at all! Instead, he is so well spoken and with the aid of the Spirit has communicated in ways that any of us should be inspired by, to do better ourselves. I really like your post about Paul's good qualities, which he gained by the work of the Spirit in him. What a wonderful example to us.

Hate may be the wrong word in this case, but there appear to be plenty of people who reject him, disavow his epistles, and generally argue that they ought not to be taken seriously.

There may be nothing personal in that; it may be only that they want nothing to do with that part of the New Testament.

 

[Pedra]

It is a mistake to think the word of God is optional to a true believer. With nudgings from the Holy Spirit , I left a denomination because they cherry-picked what was a teaching they'd accept and what they rejected, so they had huge gaps in their teachings. Part identifying as christian and part world.

 

[Halbhh]

Hate may be the wrong word in this case, but there appear to be plenty of people who reject him, disavow his epistles, and generally argue that they ought not to be taken seriously.

There may be nothing personal in that; it may be only that they want nothing to do with that part of the New Testament.

That's fair, but I think there is the effect of a global online forum to bring that relatively uncommon (my guess) viewpoint forward more than it is actually out there in the church. Sure, I've only been in maybe 50-60 different churches in my life, and only 8 denominations (including Catholic) and that's only a tiny fraction of churches even in the cities I was attending in, but I didn't ever encounter anyone trying to say in any way we are saved only by works, or if any sermon ever even suggested such, I didn't notice, and I am the kind that really pays close attention when I do (which is still just a fraction like 1/2 or so of the sermon duration), tending even today to remember phrases and how preachers spoke 35 and 45 years ago. I think so-called 'works-salvation' is a rare bird, and that even sometimes where it seems a person might believe such, it turns out to be a miscommunication (which I've verified a few times, so that's not just a guess).

What's more common, unfortunately (cause it's harder to help them about), is the opposite mistake, where Ephesians 2:10, and all other verses like it (including from Christ Himself in person no less), go missing in someone's understanding of the Gospel.

 

[Albion]

That's fair, but I think there is the effect of a global online forum to bring that relatively uncommon (my guess) viewpoint forward more than it is actually out there in the church.

Well, I agree that it is impossible to give a good estimate of the numbers of people who reject Paul but consider themselves Bible-believing Christians. All I wanted to add on that point was that is it not rare. I would have thought it rare a few years ago, but I keep running into it--here on CF as well.

…I didn't ever encounter anyone trying to say in any way we are saved only by works, or if any sermon ever even suggested such, I didn't notice, and I am the kind that really pays close attention when I do (which is still just a fraction like 1/2 or so of the sermon duration), tending even today to remember phrases and how preachers spoke 35 and 45 years ago. I think so-called 'works-salvation' is a rare bird, and that even sometimes where it seems a person might believe such, it turns out to be a miscommunication (which I've verified a few times, so that's not just a guess).

On this point, people who think we are saved ONLY by works must be few. But most Christians belong to churches that teach that both our faith AND our good works account for our salvation or, to put it another way, say salvation depends on both.

 

[Halbhh]

Well, I agree that it is impossible to give a good estimate of the numbers of people who reject Paul but consider themselves Bible-believing Christians. All I wanted to add on that point was that is it not rare. I would have thought it rare a few years ago, but I keep running into it--here on CF as well.



On this point, people who think we are saved ONLY by works must be few. But most Christians belong to churches that teach that both our faith AND our good works account for our salvation or, to put it another way, say salvation depends on both.

This last sentence is where I think so much miscommunication happens from both sides of those discussions, here on CF.

The 'grace side' (even though both sides believe we are saved only by grace) thinks the 'works side' (even though hardly anyone thinks we are saved just by works) is saying that our salvation is accomplished only by the combination of grace and works.

But they are not. Or most are not. I think 95% or better are not saying that.

But it seems as if they are saying that, to the 'grace side'. Partly because there is the idea that some people are saying we are saved by works, as part of our salvation, so it's easy to think it's what is in front of us (even when it is not).

And conversely, to the 'works side' (who in reality usually thinks we are saved by grace alone, and then must do works, but very often does not articulate it clearly this way) -- they think the 'grace without works side' is trying to remove things like "love one another" and other works from the gospel (to use the hyperbolic but still actual instance). Which I think that's also often illusion -- that in reality a 'grace without any works showing up side' isn't that common either.

 

[Albion]

The 'grace side' (even though both sides believe we are saved only by grace) thinks the 'works side' (even though hardly anyone thinks we are saved just by works) is saying that our salvation is accomplished only by the combination of grace and works.

They are saying that. And in so doing, they are in step with the teaching of their churches

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Well, I agree that it is impossible to give a good estimate of the numbers of people who reject Paul but consider themselves Bible-believing Christians. All I wanted to add on that point was that is it not rare. I would have thought it rare a few years ago, but I keep running into it--here on CF as well.

Aren't such people usually "Red Letter" believers (they make their theology based primarily on Jesus statements rather than doing what most Christians do assume that Paul and the other apostles clarify issues not raised in the Gospels or other problems implementing Jesus teaching etc.).

 

[Halbhh]

They are saying that. And in so doing, they are in step with the teaching of their churches

Why don't you test that theory?

Here's how I would test it, myself. I'd ask a lot of questions, and try to find out what their terms mean.

Are the using the word 'salvation' to mean precisely what I mean when I use the term?

That would be one central question (of perhaps half a dozen) to answer early.

Then, take a key but representative sentence, and being sure to have all the context sentences they used with it, and then ask more questions, or do active listening style paraphrasing of the sentence (to what you yourself honestly think they implied and were saying and believe) and then ask:

"Did I paraphrase that correctly?"

And find out.