In this two part article I will present typical examples of slander hurled at the apostle Paul (Sha'ul). In this case the libelous material is spewed forth by the modern day "ebionites." Actually, these modern "ebionites" are somewhat different than the original ebionites. The principle difference is their absolute total rejection of Yeshua as being THE Messiah, whom the original ebionites did indeed accept, albeit with Pharisaic legalism defiling their belief by lessening Yeshua's accomplishments. Thus, in order that the original ebionites be not slandered, I will refer to the modern adherents as pseudo-ebionites, hereafter referred to by the shortened term psuEbs.
So that I not be judged as misrepresenting the psuEb position, I will included the outlandish anti-Paul propaganda utilized by them in its entirety as they seek to muddy the waters of truth and shamelessly attack Paul. I will even leave the link to their anti-Messiah web site at the end of my comments in part 2.
In order for the reader to distinguish between the psuEb material and my response, I will utilize 2 different type fonts. The ebionite material will be shown in italicized Arial font. My response is shown in the default font of this web site.
I will present the history, to the best that scholars can determine, of the true ebionites in a separate article. I feel, tragically, that many of those within the Messianic faith today are actually more similar to the original ebionites than is the self-named "ebionite" who authored the document I am about to refute. Both the original ebionites and these modern pseudo-ebionites are wrong and enemies of Messiah to varying degrees; however, at least the original ebionites acknowledged Yeshua as Messiah, even though they maintained legalistic tendencies.
In this article I will pull no punches; therefore, if you are sensitive to forthrightness and an unapologetic defense of Truth, you may find my rebuttal unusually direct. I am convinced that the most forceful rebuke possible should be applied to anti-Paulist wickedness. This is an extremely important issue of unparalleled importance. It is for that reason I will be particularly candid. The offense of anti-Paulists and counter missionaries is unrestrained, and their loathsome efforts too often go unopposed. Well here, within the Torah of Messiah website, they will find no safe harbor for their audacious lies and malevolence. Their groundless, shameless defamation of Paul is very strongly condemned here, because, as I will repeatedly point out, their ultimate objective is actually not to defame Paul. Instead, what they really hope to accomplish is one or all of the following:
A primary reason for the force of my admonishment in this article is my observation of how the anti-Paul mind set is like a virus that is slowly becoming active in the minds of more and more "messianics" and "netzarims" as they fall under the seductive power of rabbinic traditions of men and the desire to adopt "Jewishness" into their lives. "Jewishness" was developed over the centuries within a staunchly anti-Yeshua, anti-New Testament environment. As this "Jewishness" and the rabbinic baggage that accompanies it is adopted among "messianics" and "netzarims," Yeshua's work and mission often suffers as a casualty of the spiritual war. As I say often in my counter missionary articles, the problem of ultra-Semitism is a constant threat to Truth and is rapidly infecting impressionable minds that implicitly reject Yeshua or devalue his marvelous achievements.
Though I will not address it at length in this article, those Messianics and Netzarims who fall all over themselves in their rush to adopt "Judaic" principles and traditions need to realize that what Nicea is to Christianity, Yavneh is to rabbinic Judaism. BOTH religions are manmade inventions. Furthermore, both are based upon "sage" worship. In fact, Judaism is much worse in that particular area. Rabbinic Judaism was invented in the second and third centuries following the destruction of the second Temple. And Christianity was instituted at Nicea under the rule of Constantine in the fourth century. NEITHER religion is true to Scripture, and BOTH religions are post-Yeshua inventions. This is easily proven from known history, and I will show the proof in other articles.
I will not relent in my opposition to ultra-Semitism because it is a serious problem that must be dealt with, and since few are willing to do so, I will! Many Messianics/Netzarims oppose me for doing so, but I stand by Messiah Yeshua, and if my faith in Messiah offends them, then let them be offended! I will NOT apologize for my faith in the person and work of Yeshua the Messiah. Other Messianics can place their hope in their own righteousness and "traditions" if they wish, but I place mine in Yeshua! As Paul, the apostle they often reject or misrepresent, says in a way that cannot be improved upon:
With increasing regularity Messianics today are moving Yeshua to the back of the bus as they embrace rabbinic traditions, "oral torah," and their own efforts at what they, or their adored rabbis, define as righteousness. It has even become common among Messianics and Netzarims to embrace, and often endorse (!!!), groups that openly oppose Yeshua! My intent and goal is to place Yeshua where he truly belongs, in the driver's seat from which he has been removed by too many Messianics and Netzarims, and to expose the anti-Messiah foundations of those groups many alleged followers of Yeshua the Messiah increasingly adore and encourage.
Now to my rebuke of the wicked anti-Paul slanderers.
Paul of Tarsus, Apostle?
Please, honestly consider the following:Why were the first writings to be collected as Christian scripture Paul's writings? The real followers of Jesus (Yeshua) did not need writings. Unlike Paul, they knew Yeshua, and what he had said and taught. Paul was teaching those who were unaware of Yeshua's actual teachings.
What is the point being made here? Why is the fact that Paul wrote letters considered bad? Is everyone bad that writes letters or emails or web site material? Is writing a sin? Are those that depend upon those written teachings sinful or bad? Apparently psuEbs think so. Do they expect Paul to have shouted so loudly that people in Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Rome, and Philippi would hear without him having to send letters? I suspect those near Paul at the time would have reason to complain of the noise! (Just as I must complain of the "noise" made by anti-Paulists.) Do these psuEbs also consider Matthew and Mark and Luke and John and Peter and James to be false apostles, since they also produced written material?
Oh! I forgot. PsuEbs reject the entire New Testament, with the possible exception of one book. Then why do they conceal this fact in their anti-Paul document? For that matter, why do they attack simply Paul? Could it be because their attack against Paul is really simply the opening volley against their REAL target, the entire New Testament and the Messiah presented therein? Yes! That is precisely their true agenda! But unless you knew that before reading their senseless diatribes against Paul, you would think they were actually embracing Yeshua, which is often precisely what their more deceptive apostles want you to think, one of whom must have written this anti-Paul rubbish.
Are these psuEbs suggesting that only those that literally heard Yeshua speak are worthy to be his followers? Then I guess the psuEbs would join us and everyone else over the last 2000 years as being unworthy to teach or embrace anything, including the Divine instructions (torah), since none of us heard Yeshua speak, and no one in over 3000 years heard YHVH (G-d) or Moses give the instructions.
Furthermore, how were those not physically present with Yeshua to know of his work without being told? And what's the problem with being told by letters? Are anti-Paulists suggesting only the original 12 apostles are able to teach? Then what are we to do today, since none of those present with Messiah are alive? And, of course, none of those present with Moses are alive to teach torah.
Ohhh! I get it now. The psuEbs and other anti-Paulists want us to listen to their "teachings." Well, there is a snowball's chance in the hot place of me doing that!
PsuEbs claim "Paul was teaching those who were unaware of Yeshua's actual teaching."
Uh? Excuse me, but isn't that the point of teaching those that were not present with Yeshua? Isn't that the point of going out on missionary trips to spread the Truth? What's wrong with teaching people that did not have the opportunity to hear it straight from Yeshua's mouth? Does that mean only those that were within hearing distance of Yeshua's words could be taught his teachings? Isn't that being a bit redundant?
Hello! Earth to psuEbs, earth to psuEbs, can you hear me? Maybe on your planet those that are unaware of someone's teachings are actually aware of the teachings but somehow are unaware or their awareness and ... oh well. I give up trying to make sense of the point these Paul haters (and Yeshua haters) are making here.
My sarcasm is unapologetically intentional, but it pails in comparison to the lunacy of their arguments, here and all throughout their vile attempts at slandering Paul.
Let's get real here people! Here in the very first paragraph of their fanciful slander of Paul we already begin to get a taste of the extent to which they go to "pull out of thin air" any shred of anti-Paul material they can find, regardless of how ridiculous and childish it is. And their air is pretty thin indeed! We also begin to get a taste of their irrational and psychotic hatred of Paul. As you will see, their hatred is not just of Paul, but also of Yeshua the Messiah and the glorious work he has (and will) accomplish. Paul is their "whipping boy" and "scapegoat" used to conceal the REAL object of their hatred, which is the Messiah presented in the New Testament.
Why are the NT writings in Greek when Yeshua and his disciples spoke Hebrew and Aramaic? Gentile followers of Paul wrote them in Greek so that the false statements and new doctrines they were propagating falsely in Yeshua's name would remain hidden from the Jewish followers of Yeshua.
Why Greek? Simple, that was THE most common language of the day! What's so hard to understand about that? Maybe they forget Israel was part of the Greco-Roman empire back then! The typical psuEb ignorance and rewritings of history suggests that may be their problem. Here in the United States, teachings are generally in English. Does that make them wrong?
And what of this idiotic claim that the New Testament was written in Greek so that it would " ... remain hidden from the Jewish followers of Yeshua ...?" That has got to be one of the dumbest accusations I have yet heard from anti-Paulists! Greek was not a "secret language" known only by a few. It was the common language of the day! If Paul and others wanted to conceal their teachings from others, they most certainly would not have used the most prevalent language around! I will not waste time further commenting on such a stupid argument!
Oops! I forgot. Greek is considered evil to members of the Hebrew "language enforcers" who teach that Hebrew is the "Divine language" and that anything other than Hebrew is worthless for teaching. I guess that means their anti-Paul literature is worthless since it is written in English. Of course, it is worthless, but not because of the language in which it is written. So, if you read an English translation, then according to psuEbs and other Hebrew language worshippers, you are considered ignorant of truth and Scripture-disabled.
I won't get into discussing Hebrew language-enforcers here, though I touch upon it elsewhere on this web site , but I will pose a question for you to ponder.
Did YHVH (G-d) choose Abraham because Abraham spoke Hebrew, or did G-d communicate in Hebrew because He chose Abraham?
OH! By the way, modern Hebrew is NOT ancient Hebrew. It is NOT the precise language or alphabet used by Moses, and Abraham actually spoke Chaldean. I guess that means we need to find a Chaldean version of Scripture to know the real truth. That places even the Hebrew language-police in the penalty box with the rest of us poor ignorant non-Hebrew fools. Knowledge of Hebrew is definitely useful. However, "useful" and "necessary" are VERY different words! Being fluent in Hebrew IS useful, but it is NOT necessary. Anyone that says otherwise is a die-hard ultra-Semitic elitist.
Even in Israel at the time of Yeshua Greek was a common language. Additionally, most of the diaspora spread throughout the Roman empire spoke and read Greek. And one more thing, the most prevalent Tanakh (Old Testament) of that day used by the common people was the LXX (Septuagint) Greek translation. The Masoretic Hebrew text did not exist until several hundred years AFTER the first century. But of course, that's just one of many facts psuEbs and other anti-Paulists prefer that you not know.
Of course, as previously stated, their statement, "Gentile followers of Paul wrote them in Greek so that the false statements and new doctrines they were propagating falsely in Yeshua's name would remain hidden from the Jewish followers of Yeshua." is definitely putting the cart before the horse. But such are the ways of the anti-Paulists, they do not hesitate to make widely speculative statements as part of their baseless hatred of Paul, the New Testament, and Yeshua the Messiah.
Let me once again remind you that psuEbs reject Yeshua's Messiahship. So why do they keep acting as though they accept him? Well, as with much of their material, they want to deceive you with subtle slight-of-hand into thinking they acknowledge Yeshua as Messiah, at least until they weaken your faith, at which time they will reveal their true beliefs - and thus their true reasons for attacking Paul. To prove my point, let me quote from the statement of faith of the very same web site from which this slanderous psuEb material is obtained. It is possible it would have changed by the time you read this if they decide to "conceal the evidence" of their true intentions for attacking defenseless Paul.
Yeshua is not Lord! Yeshua was not the Messiah!** Yeshua did not die as a blood atonement! He is not a savior! He was not divine! He was not a Christian; he was a man---no more, and no less---who lived and died a righteous Jew.
Well, I can agree he is not G-d or a Christian, but other than that, everything in this statement is pure anti-Messiah. And yet a little more:
... Yeshua ("Jesus") spoke words of the prophets---the words of the prophets did not speak of him. ...
And yet more:
Yeshua was not the Messiah. There is no Reign, no Kingdom of God on earth.
And finally more:
When Ebionites say "Bible" they mean the Tanakh, what most call the "Old Testament." ... It includes none of the writings that Christians have added to the Bible as their "New Testament." ... Many Christians today resent the idea that the Book of Mormon is "another testament of Jesus Christ" and some see such an idea as a dangerous deception. The Ebionites see an addition of the so-called Christian New Testament to the Hebrew Bible in the same way many Christians would reject the idea that scripture should include the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is not scripture, and neither is the Christian New Testament part of sacred scripture. Ebionites reject both of these erroneous works.
Enough said. Let the record show the psuEbs are practicing deception as they imply love of, and belief in, Yeshua. Their entire anti-Paul stance is a sham to misdirect the reader and keep them off balance as they move in to knock you off your feet of faith in Yeshua.
Continuing with the response to their brazen attack on Paul.
Who first saw fit to collect Paul's writings to make a new Bible? The gnostic Christian, Marcion, who, because of Paul's writings saw the Jews and their god, the God of Israel and the Bible, as evil. He said that Jesus was the new god who came to destroy the old one who ruled the physical world based on physical evil laws that were to now pass away.
So? This is not Paul's fault, and you will find others besides Marcion that collected Apostolic writings. This last paragraph does provide a correct assessment of Marcion's grotesque errors, but it provides no evidence that Paul actually promoted such garbage. Elsewhere on this web site I provide numerous verses from Paul's writings in my partially complete New Testament commentary, which proves quite conclusively Paul NEVER promoted that "jesus was the new god who came to destroy the old one ..." Check it out for yourself. Paul very clearly embraced the ONE and ONLY G-d of Scripture and did NOT consider Yeshua (jesus) to be that G-d. The statement above made against Paul by this psuEb, which is typical of all anti-Paulists, is an outright lie!
Friend, this is yet ONE example (I will show more) where psuEbs, and anti-Paulists in general, blatantly, and without apology, show themselves to be LIARS! Shouldn't that give you a clue regarding the "spirit" that actually guides them? Perhaps they did so innocently in the statement above. Well, I'm waiting for their public apology to Paul, but I'm not holding my breath as I wait for it. Their irrational and sinful hatred of Paul is too extreme to expect humility or honesty.
This is a good place for me to voice a blanket warning that applies to ALL anti-Paulists.
Which, by the way, we were warned about by Peter.
Note that Peter:
Of course, anti-Paulist would claim for these passages from Peter's letter the same they do for any other New Testament passages that present Paul in a positive manner. They probably claim they are forged additions by Christian scribes. Their insane hatred of Paul truly has placed them in a psychotic world of altered reality.
Over and over and over and over you will find, as a standard practice among anti-Paulists, the use of erroneous traditional Christian teachings to "prove" Paul to be a false apostle. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't Paul's writings be first checked to verify if they are being used as he intended? Isn't that the honest thing to do? Why do anti-Paulists treat Paul as "guilty until proven innocent" instead of "innocent until proven guilty?" There are LOTS of studies where this was done and which prove Paul to be grossly misrepresented by traditional Christianity, but psuEbs hope you never come across that material, and they certainly will not recommend where you can find it.
I'll provide one common example. There is a young man, typically representative of those rejecting Paul, who decided after "intense and lengthy" study that Paul was a false apostle. (By the way, his "intense and lengthy study" lasted less than 5 months ?? and largely consisted of web searches.) He was lead to this way of thinking by Paul slanderers like the psuEbs. I suggested a single inexpensive publication, Paul the Jewish Theologian, a Pharisee among Christians, Jews, and Gentiles, by Dr. Brad Young. Dr. Young disproves the traditional anti-Torah interpretation most theologians apply to Paul's writings, instead showing Paul to be a strong PROPONENT of the PROPER application of Torah in the lives of ALL believers. Unfortunately for him, this young man replied that he did not see the need to invest in the material. Apparently the pearl of great price (Matt.13:46) was worthless to him and the treasure in the field (Matt. 13:44) wasn't worth the price of one shovel full of dirt. I decided that if Truth was so cheap to him, then I would waste no time trying to change his mind and ceased further correspondence. Strangely, even though he refused to consider material that shows anti-Paulists wrong, he accused me of the one with bias, not knowing that I long ago worked through my own doubts of Paul and came away fully convinced of what I now believe. As is common, his beliefs digressed during his 5 month "intense study" from being a typical Christian, to a monotheistic Messianic, to a psuedo-Messianic who rejected Paul, to rejecting the New Testament entirely, and ulitmately to rejecting Messiah Yeshua and converting to Judaism.
The spiral downward into the abyss of unbelief I just described is precisely the hope of most anti-Paulists and others that consistently attack the New Testament. I discuss this in other articles on the web site.
Such attitudes as were presented by this "ignorant and unstable" (Peter's words, not mine) young man are common among Paul haters. I "wipe the dust from my feet" in such circumstances and move on to those with minds that are open to Truth and who see value in searching for Truth.
There is plenty of material available with which a person can easily see Paul was a strong propoenent of the true Torah. Yes, he was against the traditions of men, the "fences" of unscriptural rabbinic traditions - fences which became barriers in the path of those seeking to draw closer to G-d. But so was Yeshua! And therein lies the TRUE reason for the irrational hatred of Paul among anti-Paulists. They are strict legalists and despise Paul for daring to offend their sacred MANMADE, UNSCRIPTURAL TRADITIONS that impose unnecessary hardship upon those seeking to draw near to G-d. Paul was against incorrect legalistic interpretations of torah, but he was NOT against correct torah observance. Of course, most anti-Paulists also reject the notion of substitutionary death, and fail to inform you of this as part of their common tactics of deception.
Continuing:
Have you ever noticed that in all Paul's writings the words of Yeshua or Yeshua's teachings are hardly ever found? This is because Paul never followed Yeshua on this earth.
Have you ever noticed how psuEbs keep acting as though they revere Yeshua? As you saw in the quotes I presented from their web site, they most certainly do NOT acknowledge Yeshua as Messiah! And what of this "hardly ever found?" Why not just admit they ARE found. Besides Mr. psuEb, you do not accept Yeshua anyway, so why would you care? What's your point? You hate Yeshua even more than Paul, so why worry with faking defense of Yeshua's teachings? In truth, Paul's teachings ARE Yeshua's teachings - teachings which emphasize the torah of the heart, not the largely bogus "oral torah" of Scripturally unsubstantiated rabbinic precepts.
Paul only knew Yeshua from a vision. He cannot even keep the details of his vision straight. One time he relates, “they heard but did not see” but then contradicts himself with, “they saw but did not hear” in reference to witnesses of the supposed vision, a vision that Paul claims superiority over Yeshua's actual disciples. [see Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9]
Do you, Mr. psuEb, know Yeshua in person? Are you suggesting only those in personal, physical contact with Yeshua are able to know him? The prophets of the Tanakh "only knew" YHVH (G-d) from visions. Do you wish us to discard the writings of the prophets also? How many people do you know that even have visionary contact with Yeshua? And let's look at the verses this psuEb supplied. As you will see, he is wrong again.
Now, at first glance one would be inclined to accept the psuEb position; however, let's look more closely at the Greek (sorry Mr. psuEb, deal with it) word translated as "hearing" and "heard."
In both instances the Greek word is akouo, Strong's Lexicon number 191.
#191 [akouo /ak·oo·o/] v. A root; TDNT 1:216; TDNTA 34; GK 200 and 201;
437 occurrences; AV translates as “hear” 418 times, “hearken” six times, “give audience” three times, “hearer” twice, and translated miscellaneously eight times.
1 to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf.
2 to hear. 2b to attend to, consider what is or has been said. 2c to understand, perceive the sense of what is said.
3 to hear something. 3a to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence. 3b to get by hearing learn. 3c a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn. 3e to give ear to a teaching or a teacher. 3f to comprehend, to understand.
Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible#191. akouo, ak-oo´-o; a prim. verb; to hear (in various senses):— give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), ([shall]) hear (-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.
Strong, J. (1997, c1996). The new Strong's dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words (electronic ed.). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
First, the Greek word can mean "hear," as in hear a sound, or "understand," as in understanding the sound heard. In fact, recognizing this, other versions more correctly render Acts 22:9 as:
In both passages the light was seen. Why do you think the guys with Paul were "speechless" with fright as shown in Acts 9:7? They most certainly saw the light, but they did not see a man in either record of the incident.
So, taken separately, these verses present a partial picture, but taken together they tell the whole story. Those with Paul did hear a sound and see a light in both instances; however, in neither case did they understand what they heard.
There are other examples of "hearing" but not "hearing" (understanding). Note Yeshua's warning, which uses the exact same Greek word we discussed earlier.
Was Yeshua warning us here of being careful how we physically hear something? The only way we can hear anything, then or now, is with our ears! Obviously, even the Paul haters will concede that Yeshua is warning us of being careful how we understand something so that we be not lead astray. (Of course they neither wish to hear or understand the true Messiah Yeshua.) Other translations properly convey the word "hear" in this verse as "listen."
So, yet again we see the anti-Paulists reverting to their standard tactic of reaching into thin air for evidence against Paul that doesn't exist.
Continuing:
If Shimon (Peter) was chosen by Yeshua to lead his “church,” what authority does Paul have to “oppose him to his face” and call him a hypocrite (fake), correcting someone who personally knew Yeshua and his teachings? But is Paul not to be considered hypocritical when he says “I have become all things to all men” imitating whatever people he finds himself among?! Then double-minded Paul claims he imitates Yeshua. [Mt 10:2, 40; 16:15-19; Gal 2:11-13; 1Cor 9:19-22, 10:31-33; Jas 1:18, 4:8]The community of Yeshua at Yerushalayim was led by James, Peter, and John. Paul belittles apostles in comparison with his own importance. But after all, according to Paul, he had worked harder than these “Pillars” or who at least “seemed” to be pillars, or seemed” to be something!! [2Cor 11; 1Cor 15:9-10; Gal 2:6-9]
Ok. Here we begin to enter into some of the more grotesque slander of Paul, which you will find in just about any anti-Paul trash you find. In fact, I do not know of a single anti-Paulist that does not refer to this same situation. It must be among their many "talking points" and "spin" they circulate among one another.
First, News flash Mr. psuEb. Peter was NOT the head of the Jerusalem Messianic community. James was. That is a fact of history. Are you a closet Catholic that considers Peter the first Pope? Actually he appears to partially admit the truth in the second of the two paragraphs above, since he lists James first.
Second, the situation referred to in Galatians is a perfectly correct assessment by Paul! And, by the way, Paul did NOT "call him a hypocrite." The liar that published this anti-Paul propaganda purposely slants his report of what the passages actually say. He makes the reader think Paul was yelling to Peter, "Hey Peter! You damned hypocrite!" But that is NOT what happened. Instead, Paul was referring to the situation of backing away from non-Jews, which Peter and others did, as representing an act of hypocrisy, which it most definitely was!
It is no wonder anti-Paulist prefer to not delve into the details of what is written here in Galatians. What happened was that Peter allowed himself to be pressured by his legalistic and rabbinic tradition enforcing peers into pulling back from non-Jews. Paul correctly rebuked Peter for, in the past, supporting the mission to non-Jews, yet now acting "hypocritical" by separating himself apart with his elitists friends. This is more easily seen when it is realized Peter was the first apostle to reach non-Jews (recall the Peter's vision and Cornelius in Acts 10). The word "hypocrite" is actually a Greek word adopted into the English language. It literally means an "actor" as in an actor on a stage playing a part. Peter, and others mentioned, were "acting" like they accepted Yeshua. By allowing legalistic, elitist, harsh haters of gentiles to persuade them to withdraw from the non-Jews, they were "hypocritical."
I feel some of today's "Messianics" and "Netzarims" need to recognize a similar hypocrisy they increasingly possess. With sad regularity I find them to be following in Peter's footsteps of hypocrisy, and even worse, they mimic in many respects those who opposed Paul, which may be one reason they offer little or no opposition to Paul's present day accusers.There is a hidden story here that I will elaborate upon in another writing, but I will touch upon the primary point here. Scholars feel those spoken of in the New Testament as often opposing Paul and Yeshua, were one and the same. It is thought by scholars that the original ebionites were Pharisees that never fully accepted the full impact of Yeshua's work. Furthermore, it was very likely the original ebionites that were the primary ones guilty of constant harassment of Paul and intent on reducing Messiah's glorious achievements by imposing unnecessary legalistic barriers upon non-Jewish followers of Yeshua! Therefore, it should be no surprise that today's "ebionites" also oppose Paul. They have yet to get over the severe butt-kicking they received at the hands of Paul AND THE REST OF THE APOSTLES.
You see, Acts tells of a Jerusalem conference (Acts 15) that was called specifically to address the situation written about in Galatians. Paul actually deferred the matter to the leaders of the Jerusalem Messianic community, most notably James. He left it up to them to decide the issue, and decide it they did, AGAINST THE EBIONITES! So, as Paul Harvey says, now you know "the rest of the story" that psuEbs conceal. You now know how after 2000 years, bitterness still drives the ebionite faith. They think that since Paul isn't around to defend himself, they will be unopposed in their treachery. WRONG! Myself and others are here to engage the slanderous Yeshua and Paul haters in combat! To their chagrin, they will feel the sting of defeat again as they receive a much needed spanking for their childish, hateful tantrums.
And now for THE most wicked, slanderous, and unsubstantiated element of the anti-Paul movement. You will find this in ALL of their material. The issue to which I refer is the statement,
“... But is Paul not to be considered hypocritical when he says “I have become all things to all men” imitating whatever people he finds himself among?! Then double-minded Paul claims he imitates Yeshua.”
Similar defamations of Paul abound among anti-Paulists. They extract from the context of the his letters various words of Paul's and then using their cut-n-paste crimes to lead the naive and New Testament illiterate into thinking Paul was some sort of con-artists. In most cases they actually state that he was. Well, let's look at the context they ALWAYS fail to supply.
First, regarding Paul's statement, “I have become all things to all men.”
A thorough discussion of the total context of these passages from 1 Corinthians is beyond the scope of this already long article; therefore, I will limit my response to refuting the specific lie being promoted in the subject anti-Paul text of the psuEbs.
First, as a point of reference, there are some basics regarding Paul that must be understood; therefore, I must temporarily deviate from purely responding to the subject anti-Paul material. Please bear with me.
It is that bridge building mentality that psuEbs and other anti-Paulists actually despise. He hoped to build a bridge between the pagan non-Jews to whom he was primarily sent and the ultimate objective of a torah observant faith. However, these “marching orders” were actually not his, and he was not the only person interested in building bridges of faith to the gentiles. These "orders" had been decreed by the elders of the Jerusalem Messianic community from whom Paul received much of his direction. In fact, James, the Nasi, or President of these leaders personally voiced these marching orders in Acts 15. And I do mean “marching orders,” since the decision was literally written down in letters to be carried by those sent out, which included Paul. Note the following passages from Acts 15. For the sake of brevity, I will only include those most relevant to this issue.
[In other words, let's not prohibit the gentiles from coming in the door (Yeshua is that door), after which they will learn more torah since “Moses … (is) … read in the synagogues every Sabbath." (Torah is taught every Sabbath, which they will eventually learn to appreciate from their Sabbath lessons.) Let's not strain them to the breaking point with unnecessary legalism.]22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
David Stern sheds an important light on this issue in Jewish New Testament commentary regarding verse 1.
Some men … from Y'hudah (Judea). Verse 24 tells us they were from the Messianic community in Yerushalayim but had not been authorized to be teaching the brothers. Unauthorized teachers are also discussed at Galatians 2:11-13.; it may have been the same situation, or earlier, or later (scholarly opinions differ), but in any case it was at least similar.
You. The “you” are Gentiles who have come to faith in God and his Messiah Yeshua without becoming proselytes to Judaism. The question of whether Jewish believers should have their sons circumcised is not raised here at all, but it is raised at Acts 21:21.
Unless you undergo b'rit-milah [circumcision] in the manner prescribed by Moshe. The condition named for salvation is actually shorthand for something far more comprehensive. These men from Y'hudah are insisting that Gentiles must become in every sense Jews. At v. 5 they make this clearer by adding explicitly that the Gentile believers should be directed “to observe the Torah of Moshe,” by which they mean both the Written and Oral Torah. [Sadly, this "Judaizing" mind set is still very prevalent today among Messianics, who also seem to insists Messianics/Netzarims "must become in every sense Jews."]
This condition goes beyond the requirements for individual salvation set forth in the Tanakh, in Judaism or by the emissaries. The Tanakh says, and Kefa quotes it at 2:21, “Everyone who calls on the name of Adonai will be saved.” Judaism teaches that to be saved Gentiles need only obey the seven Noachide laws (see v.20). The New Testament books of Romans, Galatians and Ephesians have as a central issue the equality of Jews and Gentiles before God, insofar as salvation is concerned; they make it clear that observance of the Torah, as it applies to Jews, is not a condition for the salvation of a Gentile.
Thus the requirement that Gentiles convert to Judaism and the teaching behind this requirement constitute a serious threat to the Gospel. For if individuals not born into Jewish culture and society are each required to become Jews before God will recognize their faith in him, far fewer Gentiles will trouble themselves to accept the Gospel. The real issue is: can faith in God and his Messiah transcend Jewish culture? Can a Gentile become a Christian without also becoming a Jew?
So, a serious issue had been raised, pressed by ultra-legalistic ex-Pharisees, who as I stated earlier, were the forerunners to many of today's psuEbs and others like them. To combat it, the Messianic leaders (Netzarims?) issued a statement that basically imposed the standard Noachide laws upon non-Jews, which does not require circumcision and most certainly does not require the adoption of rabbinic traditions. As those non-Jews grew in knowledge of the Divine instructions (torah) they could choose for themselves the extent to which they would adopt additional aspects of non-redemptive torah issues, such as circumcision of their future children.
NOTE THAT LAST STATEMENT! There is nothing said about the children of the non-Jews anywhere in the New Testament, even in Galatians. The immediate circumcision barrier applied ONLY to those males that were converting at that time. Circumcision would be (and is) far less of a barrier to their offspring, who could have the rite performed with less hassle and pain. Lots of non-Jews are circumcised anyway, including me. However, I agree with the Jerusalem elders in that I do not see it as a "salvation" issue. Nevertheless, I support those electing circumcision, so long at they do not impose it upon others.
It never ceases to amaze me how one of the most obvious physical/spiritual parallels in Scripture (circumcision) is almost totally constrained to the physical by many "Messianics." They also avoid discussing or considering the fact that Abraham's original acceptance by G-d, as well as all who came before Abraham, was NOT dependant upon circumcision of the flesh, but it WAS dependant upon the actual "circumcision" G-d requires, which was (and is) circumcision of the heart. Today, G-d's Divine teachings that predated Sinai are not considered by many claiming "torah" observance, almost as if G-d and His instructions did not exist until then. ?? To truly grasp "torah," one must often venture back in time beyond Sinai, a journey most "torah observant" individuals prefer not to take - and a journey Paul, Yeshua, and others DID take.
So, with this foundation established, we can now see what Paul meant in his letter to Corinth in which he said, "I have become all things to all men." Unlike Paul's modern day detractors, he was filled with LOVE, not hate, for non-Jews. He adapted his approach to those he was teaching. Anyone that has ever taken a communications or public speaking course, as well as any number of courses in teaching, can easily see that all Paul was doing was utilizing basic principles of communication and "knowing your audience." Why is that so hard for Paul haters to see? Well, it isn't. They just hate Paul with such vile bitterness that they do not want to admit the obvious. That, or they are simply blinded into moronic stupidity by their own hatred, which is actually often the case.
With regard to 1 Cor. 10:31-33, Paul is simply displaying his "servant" side. In his words, "I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; .... I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some ... not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many." As Yeshua said:
So, anti-Paulists criticize Paul for his love and service to others! That should tell you something about THEIR hearts and intentions towards their fellow man, and as previously discussed, most Paul haters are also Yeshua haters; therefore, even though Paul DID imitate Messiah, they hate him anyway since they also hate Yeshua!
So the comment by the psuEb of, "... double-minded Paul claims he imitates Yeshua." is shown to be baseless, since I have just proven Paul DID imitate the love and instruction of Messiah. It is the psuEbs, and other Paul slanderers, who fail to imitate Messiah, which should be no surprise since they usually reject Yeshua.
Now I will address the second of the two paragraphs that began this segment of my rebuttal.
The community of Yeshua at Yerushalayim was led by James, Peter, and John. Paul belittles apostles in comparison with his own importance. But after all, according to Paul, he had worked harder than these “Pillars” or who at least “seemed” to be pillars, or seemed” to be something!! [2Cor 11; 1Cor 15:9-10; Gal 2:6-9]
This is a no-brainer. First, I once again must point out that those who wrote this anti-Paul material openly state on their web site that they reject ALL of the New Testament as well as Yeshua. Keeping that sure fact in your mind will remind you of the deceit they show when faking any respect for the apostles. They hate ALL of them as presented in the New Testament, because they hate the New Testament.
I've already addressed the issue of the Jerusalem leadership. There is no need to discuss it further.
Now, with regard to the intentional dart being tossed Paul's way, we see this psuEb attempting to show the following:
This is another good place for me to address an issue I have previously implied.
Those possessing such an attitude condemn themselves to guaranteed faulty interpretations of Paul's writings. They actively engage in the most despicable "witch hunt" imaginable as they sift through each and every word, trying their best to find something, anything, they can extract from the overall context and use to damn Paul. This Satanic (the accuser) attitude among anti-Paulists actually caused me to realize that no one with such an obviously wicked mind set could possibly be inspired by the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). I, too, once wondered about Paul; however, as I grew to understand the Tanakh and the Hebraic (versus Judaic) mind set, and as I witnessed the extent of wickedness in anti-Paulists, I began to see Paul as the devoted, torah observant, loving follower of Messiah Yeshua that he was. Furthermore, the hyper-negativism and accusatory attitude of anti-Paulists caused me to realize that if Satan so deeply hates Paul, then Paul must be saying things Satan wishes others not to hear. Therefore, those that accuse, who are children of the father of lies and accusation, unintentionally prove that Paul is a true apostle and promoter of Truth. In the work of anti-Paulists the Devil is easily seen.
The phrase, "benefit of the doubt" is not in the vocabulary of anti-Paulists as they read his material with ONLY one purpose in mind, to prospect for any "hint" or "clue" of evidence they can intentionally extract from the context of Paul's letters and use to falsely condemn Paul in their kangaroo court of deceit. The extent of their wickedness makes me nauseous and reveals a base level of character within them that defies explanation other than that it is demonically motivated, psychotically biased, and wicked. Satan is very often referred to as "the accuser," and anti-Paulists, more than any segment of people I know, most perfectly mimic "the accuser." In fact, they exceed even satan, since satan is shown to generally present legitimate accusations. The accusations of anti-Paulists are baseless and completely illegitimate!As much as anti-Paulists dislike it, the fact is that Paul's sufferings and effort are unmatched by any other apostle. He definitely traveled more, wrote more, preached more, and suffered more. Show me another apostle who, compared to Paul,
Show me where anti-Paulists can equal Paul's effort.
Yes indeed, Paul in his many travels was exposed to danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from his own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the desert, danger at sea, danger from false brothers, toiled and endured hardship, often did not sleep, was hungry and thirsty, frequently went without food, was cold and naked, and besides these external matters, was under the constant daily pressure of anxious concern for all the congregations. OH! And all this is shown in 2 Corinthians 11, which the Paul hater actually provided in his anti-Paul dribble! Yes, yes, I know. They reject that evidence because it comes from the New Testament they reject. Well, that's their problem, not mine. Yes indeed, it is a HUGE problem for them, or will be when the Heavenly court is called into session!
[NOTE! In the last verse Paul was NOT referring to the other legitimate apostles as many anti-Paulists wish you to think. Paul was referring to FALSE apostles from verses 13-15, "13 For such boasters are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is not strange if his ministers also disguise themselves as ministers of righteousness. Their end will match their deeds."]24 Five times I received “forty lashes less one” from the Jews.
Now let's address the anti-Paulist lie that Paul was arrogant and belittled the other apostles. I'll even use the passages supplied by the accuser.
Note verse 9 above. Are those the words of an arrogant man? I think not, and there are similar words of humility throughout Paul's writings. However, since anti-Paulists possess hyper-negative bias, they prefer to ignore them.
Next we will look at the passages supplied from Galatians.
Paul was stating a simple truth. G-d is not respecter of persons. G-d is impartial. Or, to put it in a way anti-Paulists and other counter missionaries will choke upon reading it, the ground is level at the foot of the cross (or execution stake for those with an aversion to crosses).
Are anti-Paulists suggesting G-d IS partial? Isn't that what is called elitism? What is the more humble mind set, considering all men equal or considering some "more equal" than others?
I should also point out that other New Testament authors speak highly of Paul. In fact, you will not find a negative report of Paul from the followers of Yeshua within the pages of the New Testament, except from Paul himself! Do anti-Paulists consider it arrogant of Paul to express humility and to belittle himself?
At times Paul correctly rebukes those that are displaying hypocrisy. Often Paul shows humility, and at times he correctly declares the equality of all men before G-d. So, since anti-Paulist consider this to be in error, what does that suggest regarding their beliefs? Do counter missionaries consider themselves, or others, to be beyond the reach of rebuke? Do they have a Pope we are not being told of whom they consider to be infallible?
You see my friend, the fact is that counter missionaries suffer somewhat of a mental breakdown as they twist, and strive, and contort, and shred Scripture as much as possible in their search to find legitimate evidence with which to condemn Paul. Unfortunately for them, failing in their vain attempts, they are forced to deviously scheme with whatever "hints" they can extract and piece together, just as I discussed before. Finally, their efforts lead to a loss of reality, a spiritual psychosis. Frankly, it is a pitiful sight to behold as they make utter fools of themselves all because of hate. Hate drives them, and hate exposes them. Indeed, they are a pitiful sight to behold.
This concludes Part 1 of my defense of Paul. In Part 2 I will continue with my rebuttal of anti-Paul pseudo-ebionites.