The Saul/Paul Controversy, Part 4

Friends: This is Part 4 of the Saul/Paul Controversy Series. This article, by Andy Anderson, is more of a response to previous submissions. It is presented first with my comments in [brackets] and in red.

Also, for those of you who, like me, just can't get enough of the Saul/Paul debate, I am including Kiymah's response to Andy's article.

Saul/Paul – One Man’s Observations

(A statement for Paul by a disciple of the Apostle John, and more)

Recently this discussion list has seen a few well spoken and articulate members take a hard line in expressing disapproval of the Apostle Paul by saying that he is no apostle, or worse. I respectfully disagree, and rather than answer every post made by several people point by point, I shall use much brevity in making my response, which I pray may yet be sufficient to tell a side of the story at variance with what has been recently reported by those who stand opposed to Paul and the many books and letters he wrote. It is thus important that light be shed on this question of whether Paul was a genuine apostle, rather than suffer from dark suspicions, unanswered aspersions and a dearth of pertinent facts.

In discussing this relationship of the Bible to Paul, or even asking whether other books should be included as doubtful in discipleship or spurious in origin, or if newer translations might offer a better understanding away from years of alleged tampering, so too the Scriptures offer us an idea where such partition and division may lead us.

7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 1 Corinthians 14:7-8 (KJV)

If a Pastor advocates new and “adjusted” versions and sends his pupils forth with such a foundation, they may not truly support the pastor on the local level where all authority lies, because they are in an unfounded confusion. They might also exhibit a gradual weakening of the doctrine of separation as we see in today’s Judeo-Christian churches, as they stress fundraising and yet avoid fundamentals! Certainly there will also be a gradual return to Rome, it is what Westcott and Hort worked diligently for, as well as many others whom we may never know, for the agents of Rome work secretly and insidiously as they have for long centuries, hidden and unknown among us, yet leaving proverbial evidence from the ant or termite like undermining of our common faith that they have already effected.

If the principle of Papal infallibility is long upheld by Rome to an ignorant and searching people who have been confronted with Bibles that they are taught to regard or suspect as untrustworthy and unnecessarily difficult, then they will again go where such confident assurance may be found, even if it is fraudulent, for some will not easily discover or discern the truth alone. Lastly, there will be little if any memorization of God’s word, it shall be as before in an earlier time of ignorance and peril with the advent of a new Dark Ages, so I am upholding the KJV in the Textus Receptus for its lineage, pedigree and overwhelming witness stands above any other translation and text in use today. [Although the KJV is considered authoritative by most Christians, it has many detractors. Some scholars have suggested that there are as many as 20,000 translational errors in the KJV. With respect to Paul, I respectfully disagree with Andy. The KJV, in my opinion, does not do Paul justice in many verses. Nevertheless, those who wish to defend the KJV are encouraged to make submissions to this dialogue. -- Eli]

What does the word of God say to assure us in such matters? It is clear that God does not abandon his sheep though the shepherds stray or become distracted.

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV)

8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 40:8 (KJV)

26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. Luke 9:26 (KJV)

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35 (KJV)

24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
1 Peter 1:24-25 (KJV)

A simple and sincere scrutiny of the earliest records made by the Church Fathers many years before he Council of Nicaea, shows that Paul was genuinely respected as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and without question was regarded as being on equal standing with Peter and every other Apostle. We ought to remember that these early church fathers were not Alexandrian in origin, as no Alexandrian church fathers arose in Egypt until a century had passed after the apostles whom Jesus established for our instruction and benefit. When these latter day church fathers did arise in Egypt, they were generally and soundly denounced for a wide-ranging philosophically tainted and rapine attitude applied to the Holy Writ. The reason I mention this is to bring to your awareness the real source for much confusion today in those whose attentions have been unfortunately attached to Paul or Bible interpretation in such a negative way. When such disorder and disunity abounds, you can be sure of one thing, God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33).

It is somewhat curious that in the CI family, antithetical concern for the writings of Paul and other sections which are alleged not to be scriptural or wrongly translated, such as John 3:16, or the Song of Songs (the latter said to be smut tract), appear to be the almost exclusive realm of those who proclaim to believe that Eve fornicated with Satan or some alien demonic minion, to conceive Cain. As one who came away from this Judaic teaching years ago after further study, it almost amuses me that this grievous interest generated within CI against Paul is also very parochial, and it all began with Judaic and Babylonian Talmudic sources (Acts 14:19-20; 18:12; 21:31-32; 23:14, etc). [It is true that the main opposition to Paul's writings comes from the Two-Seedline camp, because Paul's writings in the KJV are perceived to be universalist -- and the universalists use Paul's writings almost excluxively to justify their doctrine -- whereas the rest of the Bible is much more straightforwardly exclusivist, i.e., for Israel (not the Jews) only. "I come not but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." With regard to 2-Seedline Doctrine, it is true that the Talmud teaches that Eve fornicated with Satan; but the rabbis of Judaism teach this while posturing as Israelites. They use this teaching to denigrate all other races, including Whites. But Two-Seedline Doctrine is much more sophisticated than what these rabbis teach. We document the offspring of Cain from Gen. 3:15 all the way down to the Jews of today. The genealogy is this: Cain--Kenites--Canaanites--Edomites--Idumeans--Pharisees--Jews. This genealogy IS taught in the Bible. We also have the genealogy of Seth. It is the genealogy from Adam down to Yahshua, as found in Luke, Chapter 3. This is a pure line of descent, with no adulturation of the seedline. This genealogy is NOT found in the Talmud, because the Jews would not dare to reveal their true, mixed-race genealogy, although I contend that the rabbis are intimately aware of it. No Jewish writer has EVER elaborated from the seduction in the garden to what is properly called "2-Seedline." There is a world of difference, and there is no rabbi on this planet who teaches 2-Seedline. On the contrary, they all teach that the jews are Israel and the rest of us are non-human goyim. Since Andy brought it up, I feel compelled to defend what I believe to be sound Scriptural doctrine. Anyone who wants to know more about 2-Seedline should visit these two sites: -- Eli]

http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/newsletter/2005_05_11.html

[Now, back to Andy:]

I don’t see the Bible to be questioned in the manner of the skeptics, but to be learned as in older times, line by line, precept upon precept, that the Bible was and is a whole (Is 28:9-13), presented to the people with stammering lips and in another tongue for their instruction and more (2 Tim 3:16). If I lacked wisdom, understanding and discernment earlier, such was gratefully made understandable by the Holy Spirit, and the Bible being approached with a humbled spirit, became clearer and wholly unified.

Leo Gaussen, D.D. (1790-1863), was the nineteenth century’s foremost authority on the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, whose book Theopneustia was still being printed by the Moody Press as late as 1949. He was concerned lest this wide-ranging topic he studied extensively as Professor of Systematic Theology, Oratoire, Geneva, should be too rarefied to be popular and too little popular to be considered important. His questions of whether the Bible is from God, is it altogether from God, and is it true that there occurs statements not exactly true, are there also some maxims purely human, is there exhibited vulgar ignorance and ill sustained reasoning within its pages, or if you will, are there books, passages, words or portions foreign and hostile to the interests of our Christian belief within it? He rightly notes that this is a fundamental question of our faith.

If your position is that there is nothing inspired except that which passes the bar of your opinion, then your Bible is quite different from that of the Early Church Fathers, of the Reformers, of the Saints of all ages. Your Bible is fallible, theirs was perfect, and many there were who lived, suffered and often died for it under the cruelest persecutions, including Paul. Your Bible has portions, sections, books and words to be excluded, theirs was given by inspiration of God, profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, for instruction in righteousness, and for rendering the man of God perfect by faith in Jesus Christ. My Bible is known and widely shared, yours can never truly be known for it is always being critically questioned, then parts are partially and almost begrudgingly accepted, and so it can never stand and be quite secure as being wholly inspired and faithfully transmitted.

One of the earliest Church Father was a man named Clement, who in writing to the Church at Corinth in 90 AD wrote in part: “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle… With true inspiration he charged you concerning himself and Cephas.” --- True or False, by David Otis Fuller, D.D., Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, Grand Rapids, Michigan, © 1973, 1983, 9th Ed. 1995, page 298.

A contemporary servant of God was a man named Ignatius, writing thirty years after Clement to the Romans, says this: “I do not order you as did Peter and Paul; they were Apostles, I am a convict.” --- Ibid

Yet another early Church Father was a man called Polycarp, an established link with the root of the great Christian plant in Jesus Christ which bore and yet bears much goodly fruit. This brief note below confirms his credentials, and what follows ought to seal the matter regarding the fallacious claim that Paul was not accepted or that he was only promoted to be an Apostle after some vote in the Council of Nicaea.

Polycarp, born about a.d. 69 or earlier, a disciple of the apostle John, a younger friend of Ignatius, and the teacher of Irenaeus (between 130 and 140), presided as presbyter-bishop over the church of Smyrna in Asia Minor in the first half of the second century; made a journey to Rome about the year 154, to adjust the Easter dispute; and died at the stake in the persecution under Antoninus Pius a.d. 155, at a great age, having served the Lord six and eighty years. 243 —History of the Christian Church, The

Polycarp spoke humbly and eloquently to the Philippians in the same manner as the other two above, by attesting: “For neither am I, not as any other like me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul.” --- Ibid

Ignorance or malice also puts forth the argument that Paul went to Babylon to be in the desert three years, but that is apparently not what has been transmitted from the past.

The tradition, which locates the Temptation on the barren and dreary mount Quarantania, a few miles northwest of Jericho, is of late date. Paul also probably went, after his conversion, as far as Mount Sinai during the three years of repose and preparation "in Arabia," Gal. 1:17, comp. 4:24.—History of the Christian Church, The

The terrible and fiery crucible of the Judean and Arabian deserts has been where the Holy men of God emerged from to serve Him who first sent them there, this is where many of the great names we know of went and then reappeared from. Such proof can be found in many books that do not confuse the popular but incorrect location of Mount Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula, now having the quaint Mount Catherine Monastery attached. The real Mt. Sinai of Moses receiving the tablets written by God, is in western Arabia (the land of Midian), where all the proofs exist, both Biblical and historic. One such excellent book is The Exodus Case by Dr Lennart Moller, and it is still available.

Sadly, some may yet choose to disregard Paul and discount those Apostles and disciples who saw Paul as their brother in Jesus Christ, but I stand with them in their testimony and witness in favor of Paul from nearly two thousand years ago. This tempest in a proverbial teacup makes a bitter brew for those who drink of its cup, Titus 3:3; 3:9; 2 Tim 2:23; Rom 2:20, etc.

Vaya Con Dios, Andy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is Kiymah's response. Kiymah takes the anti-Paul position.

[Andy, thank you so much for writing this. It's always good to read a well and personally constructed defense of "the Bible" from a Christian believer. My responses will be in these brackets.]

Saul/Paul -- One Man's Observations

(A statement for Paul by a disciple of the Apostle John, and more)

[I'm one-hundred percent in agreement -- what matters most is pertinent fact.]

7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 1 Corinthians 14:7-8 (KJV)

[I don't understand how you can logically state that "the Scriptures" offer us an idea about where discussion of the relationship between "the Bible" and "Paul" (dividing the two) may lead us, by quoting Paul's own words. This is like saying, "Paul, in the Bible, tells us what may happen if we entertain such thoughts as Paul being unbiblical." The New Testament "Scriptures" were not all written (let alone chosen out and canonized as part of "the Bible") when Paul expressed this idea, so how could this or any of his ideas possibly refer to "such partition and division" of his own ideas from a non-existent "Bible?"

Furthermore, please let it be understood, that I certainly think Paul's epistles should remain in "the Bible." Paul speaks for himself quite well, and it can and has been discerned that his words are not infallible, just as sure as it has been proven that the many and varying Greek (and otherwise) manuscripts of the NT cannot all be infallible. Much can be learned from his words, just as much can be learned from the Kenite-contrived book of Esther.]

If a Pastor advocates new and "adjusted" versions and sends his pupils forth with such a foundation, they may not truly support the pastor on the local level where all authority lies, because they are in an unfounded confusion. They might also exhibit a gradual weakening of the doctrine of separation as we see in today's Judeo-Christian churches, as they stress fundraising and yet avoid fundamentals! Certainly there will also be a gradual return to Rome, it is what Westcott and Hort worked diligently for, as well as many others whom we may never know, for the agents of Rome work secretly and insidiously as they have for long centuries, hidden and unknown among us, yet leaving proverbial evidence from the ant or termite like undermining of our common faith that they have already effected.

[I definitely agree with you that this is not an issue of revising a corrupted and/or mistranslated text. I think that Paul's ideas in his epistles have, in large part, been preserved for us in the manuscripts, and likewise into the English.]

[Like you say, some ignorant people are searching for something to confide in and may turn to a fraudulent place of assurance. Isn't this exactly what KJV-only people are doing? Our understanding is not dependent upon one group of people's translation of one group of people's decision as to which books should be placed in "the Bible."]

What does the word of God say to assure us in such matters? It is clear that God does not abandon his sheep though the shepherds stray or become distracted.

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV)

8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 40:8 (KJV)

26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. Luke 9:26 (KJV)

35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 24:35 (KJV)

24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
1 Peter 1:24-25 (KJV)

[The Word of YHVH is a sure thing. The Word of Adam is not. Digging out of bad translations, discerning between varying manuscripts, and separating opposing ideas within this man-made canon is just the shell of finding YHVH's Word, Which is Living, not ink and paper. You don't actually think Paul's words are that of "the LORD (YHVH)" which shall endure longer than heaven and earth?]

[Whether or not the ante-Nicene "Church Fathers" accepted Paul adds nothing to the authenticity of his words, just as sure as the Alexandrian "Church Fathers" added nothing to them. They (like Paul) were only men. Also, why do you insist that "disorder and disunity" is not of God, when the Master Himself said, "do not think I am come to bring peace, no, rather division." Just because one group of people was in agreement, does not mean that they were the everlasting Assembly of Yahshua. Yahshua promised great deception in the coming days. One could just as easily say the ante-Nicene "Church Fathers" were the ones who were deceived.]

[Yahshua taught literal two-seedline, so I suppose he was "Judaic" too. Quite frankly, I don't care if the Jews codified two-seedline ideas in their Talmud Bavli -- I am only interested in the absolute Truth.

Also, please note that I find nothing wrong with John 3:16, nor do I think any book is "unscriptural." I understand that the canon of "Scripture" is man-made, and that the Truth is not dependent on it.]

I don't see the Bible to be questioned in the manner of the skeptics, but to be learned as in older times, line by line, precept upon precept, that the Bible was and is a whole (Is 28:9-13), presented to the people with stammering lips and in another tongue for their instruction and more (2 Tim 3:16). If I lacked wisdom, understanding and discernment earlier, such was gratefully made understandable by the Holy Spirit, and the Bible being approached with a humbled spirit, became clearer and wholly unified.

[How can you logically quote 2 Timothy 3:16 in defense of "the Bible" as a whole? Let me post it here: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Do you actually think Paul was referring to his own teachings, including that which he was currently expressing to Timothy as "God-breathed" when he wrote that? Furthermore, if Paul was referring to his own teachings, do you actually think Paul is affirming the much later to be devised specific canon of Scripture that we now use when he said "all scripture?"]

Leo Gaussen, D.D. (1790-1863), was the nineteenth century's foremost authority on the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, whose book Theopneustia was still being printed by the Moody Press as late as 1949. He was concerned lest this wide-ranging topic he studied extensively as Professor of Systematic Theology, Oratoire, Geneva, should be too rarefied to be popular and too little popular to be considered important. His questions of whether the Bible is from God, is it altogether from God, and is it true that there occurs statements not exactly true, are there also some maxims purely human, is there exhibited vulgar ignorance and ill sustained reasoning within its pages, or if you will, are there books, passages, words or portions foreign and hostile to the interests of our Christian belief within it? He rightly notes that this is a fundamental question of our faith.

[I must say: our Faith is not built upon ancient documents nor dogmatic ideas about which set of ancient documents is "the" set.]

[First of all, "my" and "your" Bible are quite different from the earliest saints and early Church Fathers, considering "the Bible" was not always put together as we have it today, nor did they have at their disposal (or agree upon) all of the various books and epistles which we now call "the Bible." Secondly, how can you argue that the Reformers' Bible is different from "my" Bible, when we need only look as far as Martin Luther to find an example of a man who also did not consider the entire Bible (Genesis to Revelation) inspired of God? Third, how you can say Paul died for your Bible is absolutely beyond me. Again I ask, do you actually think Paul was talking about his (and your) "Bible" when he expressed 2 Timothy 3:16?

You are right: "my" Bible (in the sense you are using the _expression) cannot be discerned by all, just as the Master said the mysteries of the Kingdom of God are not given to all.]

One of the earliest Church Father was a man named Clement, who in writing to the Church at Corinth in 90 AD wrote in part: "Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle... With true inspiration he charged you concerning himself and Cephas." --- True or False, by David Otis Fuller, D.D., Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Â© 1973, 1983, 9th Ed. 1995, page 298.

A contemporary servant of God was a man named Ignatius, writing thirty years after Clement to the Romans, says this: "I do not order you as did Peter and Paul; they were Apostles, I am a convict." --- Ibid

[According to my understanding, these men were seduced, just as the Master promised coming (and mass) deception. I could just as easily say their favorable words of Paul affirm the Master's.]

[I don't claim that at all, but I appreciate your documentation.]

Polycarp, born about a.d. 69 or earlier, a disciple of the apostle John, a younger friend of Ignatius, and the teacher of Irenaeus (between 130 and 140), presided as presbyter-bishop over the church of Smyrna in Asia Minor in the first half of the second century; made a journey to Rome about the year 154, to adjust the Easter dispute; and died at the stake in the persecution under Antoninus Pius a.d. 155, at a great age, having served the Lord six and eighty years. 243 --- History of the Christian Church, The

Polycarp spoke humbly and eloquently to the Philippians in the same manner as the other two above, by attesting: "For neither am I, not as any other like me, able to follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul." --- Ibid

[Again, this is one man's opinion; it doesn't validate Paul in any way.]

Ignorance or malice also puts forth the argument that Paul went to Babylon to be in the desert three years, but that is apparently not what has been transmitted from the past.

[I do not argue this, but, again, I appreciate your information.]

The tradition, which locates the Temptation on the barren and dreary mount Quarantania, a few miles northwest of Jericho, is of late date. Paul also probably went, after his conversion, as far as Mount Sinai during the three years of repose and preparation "in Arabia," Gal. 1:17, comp. 4:24 ---History of the Christian Church, The

[I was more hoping for some sort of response to the internal Scriptural evidence that has been presented by me and others. I hope, therefore, this isn't what you were calling, "dark suspicions and unanswered aspersions" at the beginning of this observation that you have written. Nevertheless, I again thank you very much for offering your thoughts, which is more than most have done. YAHbless you.]

Return to Top of Page | Return to Heresy Papers Index | Go To Home Page