Maybe Christianity has Jesus Wrong: Jesus as Mystic

i'm not at home right now and so I hope to be able to expound on the matter further depending on how this goes. i should say that it is quite correct to say that the passage I referred to does also deal with the Daniel 7 passage and that i could quite well acknowledge that the primary meaning is to be found there and should apologize if it seems as though i was conveniently ignoring this understanding. yet from the passage itself one can see that the son of man is a super-human figure who is not only given everlasting dominion and a kingdom but all people are to worship/serve him. that is a prerogative of divinity. so no, the matter isn't as simple as saying that seeing as Christ was referring to the Daniel passage it wasn't a claim of divinity as well. furthermore, if we are to be consistent and let scripture be interpreted by scripture then it becomes obvious that the clouds motif is one in which the one true god comes in judgement and the only case where there is even a sliver of ambiguity is the one of Daniel but given that the nations are commanded to serve the son of man (incidentally the same word used in the LXX for this passage is also used in the gospel of Matthew when Jesus says that one cannot serve two masters, one either serves god or the devil) yet seeing as god could never command the nations to serve anyone other than him (my glory shall I not give to another) one can begin to see how this is in fact a claim to divinity. once again I reiterate that it was not blasphemous for one to claim to be the messiah but certainly blasphemous to use language that is only used of god. imagined I claimed that one should honor me just as they honor the father, or that I was eternal life itself, or that I would personally judge every human on the day of judgement, wouldn't you accuse me of blasphemy for attributing for myself the capacity of god? incidentally these are all things that Jesus claimed. there is far more I could say ( such as calling himself the lord of the sabbath, another title of god etc.) but i'll do so when I come home.

i should also add that to say that monogeneis only relates to his unique status of messiah does not detract from the force of my argument. any trinitarian would say that it is only fitting that it also encompass his uniqueness as the messiah of god yet the term is not exhausted in this definition. why I have given a logical reason for this you however, must show that it has nothing to do with being a claim to divinity aside from merely being a claim for messianic status.

I'm gettin' to ya, FiveSolas. Promise!

SolInvictus:
i'm not at home right now and so I hope to be able to expound on the matter further depending on how this goes. i should say that it is quite correct to say that the passage I referred to does also deal with the Daniel 7 passage and that i could quite well acknowledge that the primary meaning is to be found there and should apologize if it seems as though i was conveniently ignoring this understanding. yet from the passage itself one can see that the son of man is a super-human figure who is not only given everlasting dominion and a kingdom but all people are to worship/serve him. that is a prerogative of divinity. so no, the matter isn't as simple as saying that seeing as Christ was referring to the Daniel passage it wasn't a claim of divinity as well. furthermore, if we are to be consistent and let scripture be interpreted by scripture then it becomes obvious that the clouds motif is one in which the one true god comes in judgement and the only case where there is even a sliver of ambiguity is the one of Daniel but given that the nations are commanded to serve the son of man (incidentally the same word used in the LXX for this passage is also used in the gospel of Matthew when Jesus says that one cannot serve two masters, one either serves god or the devil) yet seeing as god could never command the nations to serve anyone other than him (my glory shall I not give to another) one can begin to see how this is in fact a claim to divinity.

We can make this exceedingly simple.

1 Samuel 16:14-23
Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the Lord tormented him. And Saul's servants said to him, “Behold now, a harmful spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you to seek out a man who is skillful in playing the lyre, and when the harmful spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will be well.” So Saul said to his servants, “Provide for me a man who can play well and bring him to me.” One of the young men answered, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the Lord is with him.” Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me David your son, who is with the sheep.” And Jesse took a donkey laden with bread and a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them by David his son to Saul. And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, “Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight.” And whenever the harmful spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the harmful spirit departed from him.

1 Samuel 24:10
Behold, this day your eyes have seen how the Lord gave you today into my hand in the cave. And some told me to kill you, but I spared you. I said, ‘I will not put out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord's anointed.’

Answer these questions...

1) Whenever Saul was the "Lord's Anointed" according to David, did David serve and honor Saul as God-chosen King according to that understanding?

2) If yes to #1, was David working against the Shema when he did so? In other words, was David rendering honor to Saul that should have gone to God alone?

If you said yes to #1 and no to #2, then my point is clearly made. Just because a human being is exalted and given kingly rulership over others by God Himself--along with due reverence and honor is given to the chosen leader in that position--does NOT necessitate that God's chosen leader be divine.

If the force of the logic you are trying to use were valid, then either 1) any human king God wanted to set up would have to be divine or 2) God could have NEVER established any kind of theocratic system via human kings on earth at all. God could never have even ALLOWED an earthly king to be served and venerated AS God-chosen king at all if that were the case.

See that?

It is conceivable that the God exalted "Son of Man"--God's Messiah--is a full human being who, like other God-authorized kings before him, can be served by the population of the people of God without that "service" inherently and automatically being idolatry.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne

I'm gettin' to ya, FiveSolas. Promise!

SolInvictus:
i'm not at home right now and so I hope to be able to expound on the matter further depending on how this goes. i should say that it is quite correct to say that the passage I referred to does also deal with the Daniel 7 passage and that i could quite well acknowledge that the primary meaning is to be found there and should apologize if it seems as though i was conveniently ignoring this understanding. yet from the passage itself one can see that the son of man is a super-human figure who is not only given everlasting dominion and a kingdom but all people are to worship/serve him. that is a prerogative of divinity. so no, the matter isn't as simple as saying that seeing as Christ was referring to the Daniel passage it wasn't a claim of divinity as well. furthermore, if we are to be consistent and let scripture be interpreted by scripture then it becomes obvious that the clouds motif is one in which the one true god comes in judgement and the only case where there is even a sliver of ambiguity is the one of Daniel but given that the nations are commanded to serve the son of man (incidentally the same word used in the LXX for this passage is also used in the gospel of Matthew when Jesus says that one cannot serve two masters, one either serves god or the devil) yet seeing as god could never command the nations to serve anyone other than him (my glory shall I not give to another) one can begin to see how this is in fact a claim to divinity.

We can make this exceedingly simple.

1 Samuel 16:14-23
Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit from the Lord tormented him. And Saul's servants said to him, “Behold now, a harmful spirit from God is tormenting you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you to seek out a man who is skillful in playing the lyre, and when the harmful spirit from God is upon you, he will play it, and you will be well.” So Saul said to his servants, “Provide for me a man who can play well and bring him to me.” One of the young men answered, “Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the Lord is with him.” Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me David your son, who is with the sheep.” And Jesse took a donkey laden with bread and a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them by David his son to Saul. And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, “Let David remain in my service, for he has found favor in my sight.” And whenever the harmful spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the harmful spirit departed from him.

1 Samuel 24:10
Behold, this day your eyes have seen how the Lord gave you today into my hand in the cave. And some told me to kill you, but I spared you. I said, ‘I will not put out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord's anointed.’

Answer these questions...

1) Whenever Saul was the "Lord's Anointed" according to David, did David serve and honor Saul as God-chosen King according to that understanding?

2) If yes to #1, was David working against the Shema when he did so? In other words, was David rendering honor to Saul that should have gone to God alone?

If you said yes to #1 and no to #2, then my point is clearly made. Just because a human being is exalted and given kingly rulership over others by God Himself--along with due reverence and honor is given to the chosen leader in that position--does NOT necessitate that God's chosen leader be divine.

If the force of the logic you are trying to use were valid, then either 1) any human king God wanted to set up would have to be divine or 2) God could have NEVER established any kind of theocratic system via human kings on earth at all. God could never have even ALLOWED an earthly king to be served and venerated AS God-chosen king at all if that were the case.

See that?

It is conceivable that the God exalted "Son of Man"--God's Messiah--is a full human being who, like other God-authorized kings before him, can be served by the population of the people of God without that "service" inherently and automatically being idolatry.

thank you for the reply yielded, and now having returned home i hope to be able to provide a satisfactory answer. having read your post it seems that you have not grasped my argument. it is not that i argue that any use of the word 'serve' implies divinity but rather that the particular word used in the context of daniel 7 is used to refer to divinity:

The verb plch, secondly, which here appears as a peal imperfect with telic force (to indicate purpose), is predicated of all three nouns under discussion. This verb, which reappears in verse 27b, means "serve" in the specific sense of paying reverence to a deity [BDB, 1108b]. Thus, in Daniel 3 the three friends of Daniel "serve" the True God alone (verse 17) and, therefore, refuse to "serve" any other god (verses 12, 14, and 18). In the end, on witnessing the preservation of the three youths from the flames of his furnace, King Nebuchneszzar acclaims the "God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who ... delivered His servants who put their trust in Him, violating the king's command, and yielded up their bodies so as not to serve any God except their own" (verse 28, NASB). In Daniel 6, likewise, Darius the Mede, in addressing Daniel in the den of lions, twice calls the God in whom Daniel "believed" (verse 24 MT, 23 EV) "thy God whom thou servest continually" (verses 17 MT, 16 EV, and 21 MT, 20 EV). In the only occurrence of plch in the Bible outside of Daniel, the participle is used substantively to call the priests and others ministering in the temple "the servants of the house of God" (Ezra 7:24). The denotation, therefore, of plch clearly applies more easily to believers in the Son of Man than to the majority of men rejecting His redemption.

note that the very word used to describe the proper relation of man towards god is used of the son of man and in fact it is god himself who commands the nations to worship him. in fact, that 'serve' is to be understood in the fashion of one's proper relationship to deity, translations such as the NIV go so far as to use the word worship outrightly. yet remember that this very same god is he who says that he shall not give his glory to another and maintains to be but one. this clearly hints at the trinity (but that is another subject entirely). furthermore, i noticed that your post avoided any discussion on the clouds motif that i had highlighted and as such let me reiterate:

“... Clouds often were associated with deity in the ancient world, and this being was no mere mortal… Another difficulty with the identification of the son of man as the people of God is that in v. 14 all the nations of the earth are said to ‘worship’ the son of man, and Scripture is clear that God alone is to be worshiped (cf. Rev 19:10). Another indicator of his deity is that the clouds accompany the son of man as he descends, and clouds commonly are associated with deity. Lacocque observes: ‘Out of a total of about a hundred occurrences in Scripture, in 70% of the cases, clouds refer to Sinai, or to the Temple (see I Kings 8.10-11; 2 Chr. 5.13-14; 2 Macc. 2:8; cf. the vision of the Merkaba in Ezek. 1:4 and 10:3-4), or to eschatological theophanies (Isa. 4.5; Ps. 97.2; Nahum 1.3).’ Young seems justified in stating, ‘There can be no question, but that Deity is intended here,’ and Baldwin remarks, ‘The son of man is not only king, but God, though, as is characteristic of apocalyptic style, this is conveyed in veiled terms.’ Verse 14 further reveals that ‘all’ humanity will worship the son of man, and ‘all’ humanity naturally would include the saints.” (The New American Commentary An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture – Daniel, Stephen R. Miller [Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994], Volume 18, pp. 207-209)

from the above it becomes more than obvious that the son of man is a divine figure and thus your argument is rendered null. hence we are now back full-circle and i once more must say that when you let the bible interpret itself one cannot argue against the divinity of christ nor claim that he was a mystic (which in itself is a refusal to understand him in the jewish thought-world of his day). christ appropriated for himself the prerogatives of god in that he claimed that it would be him who would judge the living and the dead on the last day. in that he claimed to be the lord of the sabbath, in that he claimed to be the good shepherd, in that he claimed to be the ressurection and life itself, and claimed that all should honour him exactly as the father was honoured. in the same manner that one honours the father by praying to him, worshiping and understanding him to be god, christ demanded likewise in saying that the father wished that all men honour the son just as they honour the father. I could go on concerning the I AM sayings of christ but you get the picture.

you have yet to prove your position on monogeneis and whether it is merely exhausted in a reference to the messainic status of christ, you have yet to prove that the coming on the clouds motif is not singular to divinity, or that the use of serve/worship in the context of daniel 7:13-14 does not imply submission to a divinity, but furthermore, you have yet to prove that christ believed in anything like the mystic sages of eastern religions. he seemed to claim exclusivity in that he never said that "We are the ressurection and the life" but rather "i am the ressurection and the life", he did not say that peter, paul, mary, joseph or anyone else should be honoured in the manner that the father was honoured but rather only him specifically. he did not call others "the good shepherd" but rather he only called himself the good shepherd and went so far as to say that anyone who has ever come before him is but a liar and a thief (the prophets are not shepherds because psalm 23 is quite clear in that the god of israel is the shepherd). christ is too exclusive to be a mystic, he denies divinity in anyone else but himself.

YO: The tradition had to be extant when Paul first got converted because Paul LEARNED his Faith from others by his own testimony; in short, he was TAUGHT that Jesus was God's Son by the disciples already in Damascus.

MustafaMC: How is your statement consistent with Galatians 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Good call. He's speaking about his encounter and interaction with the Living Christ ala Damascus and on. I was thinking more along the lines of 1 Corinthians 11:23...when he talks about the Lord's Supper and what he had "received" from the Lord. But it seems like it would be wrong there as well to assert that he received even that teaching from others, even by proxy.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you...

Taking what you've said, MustafaMC, would mean the Jesus being the Son of God was directly revealed to Paul by the Risen Jesus HIMSELF.

Hmmm...that means either Paul's telling the truth (Jesus himself told him that he was the Son of God)...or Paul had a complete mental breakdown and threw his whole religious career away to promote a Jewish sect that he had just be persecuting.

So, there's an engima there. To say that Paul is telling the truth about his experience of the Ascendant Jesus implies necessarily believing in Jesus as Son of God...because the ascendant Jesus HIMSELF told Paul this. To say Paul did NOT experience the Ascendant Jesus and was functionally crazy...well, if that's the case, we shouldn't even both reading a vast majority of the New Testament, then...right?

I'd actually say that this is a strong argument for Jesus being God's Son. Unless there could be some credible reasons to believe that Paul didn't truly experience the Ascendant Jesus talking to him, we can't deny the possibility that Jesus directly told Paul that he was God's Son. If THAT's the case...

Hmmmmm...interesting.

What do you think is the more appropriate belief, MustafaMC?

YO:This is the testimony of one of Jesus' followers. His FOLLOWERS attributed this to him."

FiveSolas: I wrote earlier about this very thing. The entire Gospel of John was written by a follower of Jesus. All the Gospels were written by the followers of Jesus, not by Jesus Himself. You cannot therefore separate the sayings of Jesus from what His followers said about Him. It's all the same.

No, it's not all the same. Open your Bible to Mark 16. Do you take the longer or shorter ending of Mark? This is very important and relevant to our discussion.
It is now solid scholarship that tells us that verses 9-20 were NOT part of the original text...but had been entered no earlier than the 2nd century.


The majority of contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel. However, this may be the result of the popularity of the text-critical work of Bruce Metzger, whose Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament currently has an almost monopolistic status as a handy reference for non-specialists. Metzger's words are frequently repeated by commentators, sometimes virtually line-by-line.

In Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament[35] Metzger states: "Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription."

The 1984 printing of the NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20." However, the Committee on Bible Translation has since changed this to read "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20." No major English translation mentions any of the patristic evidence from the 100's that favors the inclusion of the "Longer Ending."

(Actually the ESV does the same thing...check it out.)



Now please note that they WROTE IN the following words of Jesus...

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.

After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.

Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

Ok. Now, here we have words actually being put in Jesus' mouth here. We KNOW that Jesus most likely didn't say this...and we KNOW that it was Christian followers from over a century later that put those things there.

I'm saying all that to say this: Just because the Bible has some forms of testimony does NOT mean that it's actually historical in the objective sense.
If we can't agree with this, especially as it may apply to the Book of John, we're gonna have problems.

For Siam...

Korban Olah

Shechita

Passover Sacrifice (The one most related to Jesus by himself and his followers!)

MustafaMC:
How do you defend Paul as a Prophet of God?

GREAT stuff, MustafaMC. Let's do this...

Let's say right up front what Paul is confronting: Judaizers. Essentially people who told Gentiles (Paul's primary audience) that in order to follow Christ they had to basically become a Jew (circumcision, following all 613 mitzvot, etc). This is what he was straight up confronting.

And Paul's logic is reasonable: If WE, the "Children of Israel"--who actually received the Law and the Prophets--couldn't bear up under the weight of the 613 mitzvot, what makes you think that the Gentiles can and should do that. Why put the "yoke" BACK UPON OURSELVES as Jews...and upon the Gentiles as well?That completely goes BACKWARDS. No, our justification is in God's Messiah (Christ means that!) and what God, in his Grace, has done for us through him. God had set up a way where Jews AND Gentiles could be in covenant relationship with God without circumcisions and other Jewish requirements...whereas Judiazers wanted to EXCLUDE the Gentiles based upon whether or not these requirements were met. Completely against the INCLUSIVE action that God was doing in Christ.

Let's look at Galatians 5...

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. (ie. all 613 mitzvot!!!) You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

Paul was not utterly disdaining the Law and Prophets. You can read Romans and see that clearly. And Paul is the one who actually FOLLOWS the teaching of Jesus when he says "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” That is SPECIFICALLY and UNDENIABLY Jesus' teaching to his disciples. And Paul in no way thought that he was essentially denying the Shema in his following of God's Messiah. No more than any of the other apostles like Peter or James.

So the idea that Paul's message "negated Jesus' life and what he taught the disciples before his ascension" is pretty wrong, bro. As a matter of fact, Galatians has Paul CONFIRMING Jesus' teaching.

And let's just look historically at what Paul says in Phillipians 3:

Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.

Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

1) He talking against the Judiazers again with the "those who mutilate the flesh" (Was a big problem in Galatia!)

2) He was pretty much the cream of the Jewish religious crop before his encounter with Jesus. Had all KINDS of kudos, religion and family wise.

3) He considers all of that NOTHING...in light of the vision of God he's seen in Christ.

Now, here's my thought. This would be analogous to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Bill O' Reilly having some kind of experience...and then becoming absolutely PRO-DEMOCRAT and PRO-OBAMA. Unless they had a complete mental breakdown or something, no one would ever expect such a thing. And I guarantee you that if they did come out on T.V. and say something to this effect, everyone would want to know "what happened." It wouldn't be the kind of transformation you could just overlook. It would be absolutely noticeable.

We have that with Paul. So what is the most reasonable course of explanation of his behavior? Especially when his conversion and instruction by Jesus seems to MATCH what Jesus' own disciples had taught and heard...to the point of being able to put Peter in check for NOT going by it!

Now, what's interesting, MustafaMC, is that YOU as a Muslim AND I as a Christian believe that Jesus is Ascendent and with God. So it is not out of possibility for either of us that Jesus, by the power of God, COULD HAVE spoken directly to Paul. So take that into account as well.

Interesting. Now THIS may be a very compelling for Jesus being referred to as "Son of God."

Either...

1) Paul's FLAT OUT LYING about his experiences with Jesus (thus he's a bonehead crazy person who would deny all of his Pharisaical heritage and position to claim something he KNOWS to be false)

2) Paul's FLAT OUT CRAZY such that he had a psychotic break that THOUGHT he saw Jesus when he really didn't (thus he's a lunatic who threw everything away for a hallucination...that no one should be listening to authoritatively)


3) Paul's listening to a DEMONIC VOICE that acted like Jesus (thus he's a demonically oppressed person who could have no authority, even with his then CONTEMPORARY apostles like Peter, James, etc.)

or...

4) Paul's TELLING THE TRUTH about experiencing Jesus...and being SENT by Jesus to the Gentiles to tell what Jesus revealed to him.


Which is the most appropriate answer ALL THINGS CONSIDERED? For my money, I'd say the last one. #1 doesn't work because it doesn't explain his radical change from his former role as Sanhedrin-authorized persecutor of Christians. #2 and #3 seem problematic because Paul didn't work totally solo but with OTHERS who also knew Jesus and his teachings. I believe that if his "gospel" were completely antithetical to what the Disciples had heard from Jesus himself...they would have raised a stink about it.

So...

What do you think, MustafaMC?

And since you went there...

MustafaMC:
My related question is regarding Paul and Muhammad (peace be upon him), "Will the true Prophet of God stand forward exposing the other one as false?" I believe that Matthew 7:15 applies to one of these two men, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." You of course know which one I accept as a true Prophet of God and which I believe was a "wolf in sheep's clothing".

Two things:
1)Let's look at Mat 7:15-20...

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.

Hmmm...actually Jesus talks a LOT about "fruit" in Matthew. Jesus specifically says that you will recognize the true prophets by their "fruits." See Mat 12:33-37...

“Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

So...if the fruit of a prophet is "evil", meaning against Jesus' teaching about love and goodness, then it will show up. If you have hatred, malice, and indifference towards others, it will show up. If you have love, compassion, and other-centered concern, it will show up.

Now looking at Paul's teachings about love, goodness, and virture...throughout his writings...would you say that Paul had "bad" fruit? Remember that before his conversion, Paul had ASSAULTED and KILLED many Christian followers (individuals and whole families) with all kinds of HATRED and extreme prejudice...persecuting the church...but all that DISAPPEARED with his conversion and apostleship. Moreover, he teaches what Jesus taught: Love of God and Love of Neighbor as the Self. We've gotta keep that in mind.

So, according to Jesus' criterion in Matthew, has Paul had "good fruit" or "bad fruit"?

You tell me, MustafaMC? Whatcha think? Tell you what we can do. Let's compare the "fruit" of Muhammad's apostolic life and teaching...with Paul's apostolic life and teaching.

I don't recall Paul talking about killing idolaters. He talked about loving and doing good to all, including idolaters and polytheists. And that's AFTER he'd been killing and hating all kinds of people!

I DO recall Muhammad talking about killing idolaters. I do recall Muhammad saying something about...

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

or...

O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise. Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

Hmmm....ACCORDING TO THE MATTHEW TEXT THAT YOU CITE, MustafaMC, what kind of "fruit" is this? Which lifestyle is more representative of the idea that "loving the neighbor as oneself" is the WHOLE LAW? Honest question.

Now, me PERSONALLY. I wouldn't call Muhammad a "wolf in sheep's clothing" or call him a "false prophet" just to do so. I think that's rude. However, I do think it's absolutely FAIR to take MustafaMC's challenge on his terms comparing the apostolic life and writings of Paul and Muhammad...and see what's up.

Just for all the Muslims out there. I am NOT demeaning Muhammad. I really, really, REALLY want to stress that...especially for the Moderators and Admins!!!