An on-going argument: How "non-Jesus" was Paul, really?
TABLE OF CONTENTS and INTRO
[modified April 2003]
Someone recently sent me the
URL for a site by a Muslim, in which he basically attacked Paul's beliefs,
integrity, and legitimacy. When I read the material, the section on Paul
was so appalling (pun intended) that I had to respond.
Now, let me be clear about a few things about the writer's position.
My intent in this response is very limited:
First, I have no idea if this person's writing is a genuinely Muslim position.
Second, I have no idea if this person's writing is representative of "official"
Thirdly, I have no idea if this person's writing is considered a "good"
Muslim presentation of the case.
What I DO KNOW that this position is woefully mistaken (especially
for one that is SO 'dogmatic' and polemical in its tone)--irrespective
of 'liberal vs. conservative' Christian approaches.
I DO NOT intend to develop and defend the correct position on each point,
nor do I intend to give lengthy counter-arguments. I DO intend to briefly
state evidence and arguments that count against the writer's argument,
in keeping with my purpose. I simply want to make the case that readers
should NOT trust this writer's arguments as relating to Paul. (His accuracy
concerning Islam will have to be left to those more knowledgeable than
I, at this point.)
to show that the writer's use of the data is incorrect;
to show that the writer only uses an unrepresentative minority of the evidence
to show that the writer's argument is apparently unaware of the majority
of the data on the subject;
to show that the writer's argument cannot be trusted to give an adequate
and accurate portrayal of Paul's views
As usual, the writer's words will be in "BOLD" QUOTES, and mine
in regular font. And, since the writer will be quoting 'uncritically' from
the New Testament, I will do the same without asking questions of authenticity,
spurious additions, etc.
Section One has the following topics covered:
Section two, has the following topics covered:
Section three has the following topics
Does Paul's tone, attacks, and self-defenses indicate he was radically
different from the Jerusalem leadership?
Were Paul's opponents in his letters a 'Jerusalem pro-Law' party?
Was Paul really 'non-James', 'non-Peter', 'non-John', 'non-Jerusalem',
I will be adding more as I work through the different sections of the