The author of this is Patterson Brown, the translator from Coptic of the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip and Gospel of Thomas from parts 1 and 2 of www.metalog.org/files/paul_p1.html
I don't necessarily agree with each and every on of his points, but overall I think it's one of the best compilations of the egregious affronts to Christianity that are the Faulines. Patterson Brown has done all of the hard work in identifying the verses and explicitly showing the contraditions.
When reading this, remember to substitute Faul for Paul in any verses cited from the Faulines.
The Paul Paradox
**Peripatwmen kata taV entolaV autou! (II-(John 6)**
1
Those who study the New Testament may well note that popular "red-letter"editions of the text, with Christ's words thus highlighted, contain virtually no such rubrics thruout the Epistles of Paul. With the sole exception of the eucharistic formula at (1Cor. 11:24-25), he does not quote any sayings of the historical Yeshua/Jesus, either as found in the written Gospels or from a ontemporaneous oral tradition.¹ Indeed furthermore, he never even once alludes to the panorama of the Savior's biography, from the Nativity up to the Passion, which fills the pages of the first four books of the New Testament. This is, on the face of it, a most puzzling omission. (¹although, astonishingly, at (Acts 13:24-25) he does quote John the Baptist!; (Acts 20:35), on the other hand, is actually a citation from Thucidides' Peloponnesian War, II.97.4; while (Acts 26:14) is in fact from lines 1660-1 of Aeschylus' Agamemnon!)
Beyond this remarkable lack of historical concern, however, there is an even more enigmatic aspect of Paul's record in the New Testament. For an objective, philosophical reading of the documents would seem to reveal a number of logical contradictions, both within his biography and also between his theology and that of the Evangelists. It must be emphasized that these anomalies are conceptual rather than empirical in nature. For although they of course occur in interwoven historical, theological and normative contexts within the NT, they nevertheless present themselves as a-priori problems of analytical consistency between various texts - regardless of the truth or falsity of any factual claims being made or presumed by those texts. Furthermore, these discrepancies must be similarly distinguished from logically posterior issues concerning the ancient composition, editing, redactions or dating of the New Testament writings, all of which are factual/historical topics.
In sum, and stated more formally:
II
Here then is the matrix of antinomies, along with a brief statement of the apparent logical contradiction in each case (the original Greek should always be checked, at least via Adolph Knoch's superlative interlinear [Biblio.17], as modern translations often blur these very discrepancies):
01. (Acts 9:7) || (Acts 22:9)
In the propositional calculus of modern logic, "p and not-q" is the truth-functional negation of "q and not-p". Thus "they heard but did not see" directly contradicts "they saw but did not hear". Yet this famous event on the Damascus road was the sole original justification for Paul's supposed commission in independence of Peter/Kefa and the other Apostles.
02. (Acts 9:26-29) || (Gal. 1:17-2:1)
Did Paul then travel immediately - or seventeen years later! - from Damascus to Jerusalem in order to meet with the entire Apostolic circle?
03. (Matt. 22:41-45) || (Rom. 1:3)
Paul asserts that Christ is descended from David, which Christ himself in the Gospels explicitly denies (the synoptic genealogies merely providing the OT background to this transcending self-assertion).
04. (Luke 2:49), 19:45-46 || (Acts 17:24)
The Gospels endorse the OT designation of the Temple in Jerusalem as the very House of the LORD. Paul nevertheless proclaims to the Athenians that God inhabits no sanctuary made by human hands.
05. (Acts 1:15) || (1Cor. 15:6)
How can Christ have appeared to over 500 Brothers at a time (prior to the ascension) when the entire Discipleship numbered only 120?
06. (Matt. 10:2)&40, 16:15-19 || (Gal. 2:11-13)
The explicit designation of Simon Peter as the foremost Apostle, with all the delegated authority of the Lord himself, logically precludes any other Disciple or Apostle opposing him "to his face" and (worse yet) calling him a hypocrite.
07. (Matt. 28:16-20); (Acts 10:1-11:18), 15:7-8 and 13-18 || (Gal. 2:6-9)
The Gospel doctrine is clearly that, after the resurrection, the remaining eleven Apostles were sent forth to proclaim the good news to the whole world. Paul nevertheless claims to be the one and only Apostle to the gentiles ("the" Apostle as he is often called), while Peter and the others according to this view were to be restricted to evangelizing among the Jews.
08. (Matt. 5:48); (Luke 1:6); (John 1:14), 6:53-56 || (Rom. 8:8)
The incarnation of the Logos, and also the injunction to be perfect, entail
that those who are in the flesh can indeed please God.
09. (Luke 24:36-43); (John 11:43-44), 20:27; (Acts 1:9-11); (Plp. 25) || (1Cor. 15:50)
The evangelists proclaim an incarnate resurrection and parousia (second coming), whereas Paul on the contrary takes an anti-corporeal, frankly gnostic position.
10. (Luke 4:5-8); (John 18:36), 19:18; (Acts 4:26) (Ps. 2:2) || (Rom. 13:1-5)
The celestial kingdom is described in the Gospels as of another order from the entire realm of the nations, which are ruled by Satan and whereby Christ was crucified. On the other hand, the secular authorities with all their weaponry (including (Mark 15:16) ff.??) are stated by Paul to be God's own army.
11. (Matt. 22:21) || (Acts 25:11)
Christ cedes taxes to Caesar, Paul cedes his personal security to him (Nero, no less!).
12. (Deut. 23:15-16); (Matt. 23:10-12); (John 8:31-36) || (Col. 4:1); (1Tim. 6:1-2); (Phil. 1:10-19)
The re-conceptualization in the Gospels promises to emancipate the believers from oppressive relationships, while Paul literally endorses slavery within the Discipleship.
13. (Matt. 12:46-50), 23:8-9; (Luke 14:25-26); (John 1:12-13), (John 3:1-8), (John 11:52) || (Col. 3:18-21); (1Tim. 5:8)
Christ teaches that family ties are to be renounced in favor of - that is, replaced by - the Father/Motherhood of God together with the Brother/Sisterhood of their incarnate Sons and Daughters, whereas Paul adamantly defends the traditional family structure.
14. (Matt. 19:10-12); (Luke 14:20-26), 18:28-30, 20:34-36; (Plp. 64)! || (1Cor. 7:2-16) and 9:5(?!); (Eph. 5:22-24); (1Tim. 3:1-4:3)
The Gospels stipulate that those worthy of salvation must transcend matrimony (note that (Luke 18:28-30) occurs after (Luke 4:38-39); after all,according to (Gen. 3:16), monandry was Eve's punishment for disobedience! Paul notwithstanding permits a continuation of marriage among the Disciples.
15. Num 6:5; (Lev. 19:27); (Matt. 2:23) (Jude 13:5); Tr 21 || (1Cor. 11:14)
The Hebrew tradition was that long hair on male or female is a sign of holiness and special devotion to God. Indeed the word at (Matt. 2:23) is NAZWRAIOS (the LXX or Septuagint term for Nazirite), not NAZARHNOS (i.e. someone from Nazareth). Were not John the Baptist and Christ both thus consecrated from birth?
16. (Matt. 6:24-34), 10:8; (Mark 10:13-31); (Luke 10:38-42), 14:28-33; (Acts 4:32-36)
|| (Acts 18:1-3); (1Cor. 11:34); (2Thess. 3:6-12)
Christ decrees a cessation of working for mammon, donating all private possessions to the poor, and following thereafter a lifestyle both communal and itinerant - childlike and without anxiety day-to-day like the birds and the flowers, with all shared possessions being distributed equitably among those who have need - thus lifting the curse of toil from mankind (Gen. 3:17-19). Paul's advice, on the contrary, is to "eat at home" and avoid idlers, who must either work or go hungry.
17. (Mark 7:14-23); (Luke 7:34) || (Rom. 14:21); (1Cor. 8:13)
Either we ought, or we ought not, to maintain some particular diet for religious reasons. Yet Paul agrees with neither the OT's dietary rules (kashrut) nor the Savior's remarkable midrash commentary) thereupon.
18. (Matt. 12:19) (Isa 42:2); (Luke 10:7) || (Acts 17:16-34); (Acts 20:20)
Paul preaches house-to-house, as well as in the streets and squares - contrary to Christ's paradigm.
19. (Matt. 6:5-6) || (1Tim. 2:8)
Paul demands the very same outspoken prayer which Christ condemns as exhibitionist; the Savior states that one should only pray in solitude and in secret, never openly.
20. (Matt. 18:1-4); (Mark 9:33-35); (Luke 14:7-11) || I(1Cor. 11:5-12:13)
Paul's recounting of his travels is insubordinately boastful and rivalrous - rather than humble, respectful and obedient - toward those who preceded him in the Discipleship.
21. (Matt. 5:43-48), 7:1-5, 9:10-13, 18:21-35; (John 8:2-11) || (1Cor. 5); Gal
5:12; (Tit. 3:10-11)
The Gospel attitude toward wrongdoers is merciful, yet Paul's is frankly inquisitional. Is "turning someone over to Satan for the extermination of the flesh" intended to mean delivering him to the secular authorities for execution (as in (John 19:17-18)? Are we to love our enemies or condemn and castigate them?
22. (Matt. 23:8-12) || (Acts 20:28); (1Cor. 4:15); (1Tim. 3:1-13)
Paul introduces the terms "father" and "deacon" and "bishop" to designate religious leaders - the very sort of title (along with "pastor", "minister", etc.) which Christ had explicitly prohibited.
Indeed, the passage in Matthew would seem to preclude any kind of hierarchy in the Discipleship other than simple seniority (thus PRESBUTEROS, "elder [in the faith]", in (Acts 21:18), (Jas. 5:14), I-Pet 5:1, II-(John 1) - by which criterion Paul was obliged to submit to the original Apostles, quite contrary to I(1Cor. 11:5) and (Gal. 2:6).
23. (Gen. 17:10); (Luke 2:21) || (Acts 16:3)(?!); (Gal. 5:2); Phlp 3:2; (Tit. 1:10-11)
Saying that it is necessary "to gag (EPISTOMIZEIN) circumcisionist dogs" is conceptually inappropriate in an Apostolic context. In any event, even if Christ referred to that custom parabolically - as in (Thom. 53) - he certainly did not forbid its physical practice.
24. (Luke 11:27-28); (John 4:1-30), 11:20-35, 20:11-18; (Thom. 21) || (1Cor. 14:34-35); (1Tim. 2:11-15)
Various women speak up boldly to the Savior. Later, Mariam Magdalene as first witness (!) of the resurrection is sent by Christ to "angel" (AGGELLW: p66* )* A B) his rising to the Apostles themselves. This is not a teaching of mere female submissiveness or keeping quiet in the Convocation!
25. (Luke 7:36-8:3), 10:38-42, 23:55-24:11; (John 12:1-3); (Thom. 61)b, 114; (Plp. 59)
|| (1Cor. 7:1-2); (Eph. 5:22-24)
The Gospels represent women as an intimate part of Christ's entourage - thus rescinding the punishment of husband-domination in (Gen. 3:16). Paul emphatically opposes any liberated role for females.
26. (Matt. 3:11-17), 28:19-20; (Plp. 73), 96, 115(!) || (Rom. 6:3-4); (Col. 2:12)
The Gospels endorse John's Baptism in water as signifying repentance and cleansing vis-à-vis the Torah, and which furthermore is explicitly to be undertaken "in the Name". Paul, however, sees Baptism as a metaphorical or participatory dying!
27. (Luke 23:43); (John 5:24), 8:51; (Thom. 1), 18, 19, 111; (Plp. 43) || (1Thess. 4:16-17)
Christ teaches that his Disciples will not experience death, regardless of martyrdom, whereas Paul writes of "the dead in Christ".
28. (Gen. 4:1-5), (Mark 15:10) || (1Tim. 6:10)
Paul claims that the love of money is the root of all evil; but in the paradigm cases of Cain killing Abel and the Chief Priests delivering up the Savior, envy is cited as the underlying ill. It would seem impossible to attribute the wrongdoing of either Cain or the Sadducees to mere avarice.
29. (Matt. 5:17-19), 19:16-19; (Luke 16:29-31); (Acts 21:17-24)(!!); 4QMMT:C.26b-31¹ || (Rom. 7:6); (Gal. 3:10); (Gal. 5:18)
If the entire Torah - the Decalogue in particular, but also the remaining mitzvot (moral rules) such as (Lev. 19:18) et passim - is in effect until the sky and earth pass away, then the Mosaic Law is not an obsolete curse from which believers are absolved. This was the very topic at issue when, after Paul had completed his three missionary journeys, "all of the Elders"(!) in Jerusalem required him to take the Nazirite vow - to prove his continuing adherence to the Law of Moses. (¹"The works of the Torah ... will be reckoned to you as righteousness"; from the Dead Sea Scroll, Miqsat Ma"ase ha-Torah)
30. (Matt. 7:21), 11:2-6!, 19:16-19, 25:31-46; (John 13:34)!, 14:21, 15:10;
(Jas. 2:14-26) || (Rom. 3:28); (Rom. 10:9); (1Cor. 15:35-44)
Christ says that one's calling him "Lord" is not enough, but rather that the Disciple's total obedience is demanded; both the OT and the Gospels require obedience to a plenitude of divine commandments, with resultant fruitful deeds. Indeed, it was precisely by his works - and not merely by his faith - that Christ proved his own authority to John the Baptist! Paul on the other hand states that a simple confession of faith, along with a belief in Christ's (merely spiritual, not corporeal) resurrection, suffices - a thoroughly antinomian doctrine. (This subject must be carefully distinguished from that of forgiveness - both among humans and between God and humankind - as a pre-eminently innovative tenet in the Gospels. For of course absolution logically presupposes a transgression of the rules, not their abrogation; compare e.g. (Ezek. 18) with (Matt. 6:14-15).)
31. (Gen. 49); (Jude 2:16) ff.; (Matt. 19:28); (Acts 1:13-26); (Rev. 2:2), 21:14 || (1Cor. 9:1-2); I(1Cor. 11:5-13)
Finally, we must observe the fact that the permanent tally of the Apostles was established by the Savior at exactly twelve (for obvious reasons of historical symbolism - note the symmetry at (Rev. 21:12-14), and moreover that Paul was never numbered in that circle (see also the Epistle of Barnabas 8:3).
I don't necessarily agree with each and every on of his points, but overall I think it's one of the best compilations of the egregious affronts to Christianity that are the Faulines. Patterson Brown has done all of the hard work in identifying the verses and explicitly showing the contraditions.
When reading this, remember to substitute Faul for Paul in any verses cited from the Faulines.
The Paul Paradox
**Peripatwmen kata taV entolaV autou! (II-(John 6)**
1
Those who study the New Testament may well note that popular "red-letter"editions of the text, with Christ's words thus highlighted, contain virtually no such rubrics thruout the Epistles of Paul. With the sole exception of the eucharistic formula at (1Cor. 11:24-25), he does not quote any sayings of the historical Yeshua/Jesus, either as found in the written Gospels or from a ontemporaneous oral tradition.¹ Indeed furthermore, he never even once alludes to the panorama of the Savior's biography, from the Nativity up to the Passion, which fills the pages of the first four books of the New Testament. This is, on the face of it, a most puzzling omission. (¹although, astonishingly, at (Acts 13:24-25) he does quote John the Baptist!; (Acts 20:35), on the other hand, is actually a citation from Thucidides' Peloponnesian War, II.97.4; while (Acts 26:14) is in fact from lines 1660-1 of Aeschylus' Agamemnon!)
Beyond this remarkable lack of historical concern, however, there is an even more enigmatic aspect of Paul's record in the New Testament. For an objective, philosophical reading of the documents would seem to reveal a number of logical contradictions, both within his biography and also between his theology and that of the Evangelists. It must be emphasized that these anomalies are conceptual rather than empirical in nature. For although they of course occur in interwoven historical, theological and normative contexts within the NT, they nevertheless present themselves as a-priori problems of analytical consistency between various texts - regardless of the truth or falsity of any factual claims being made or presumed by those texts. Furthermore, these discrepancies must be similarly distinguished from logically posterior issues concerning the ancient composition, editing, redactions or dating of the New Testament writings, all of which are factual/historical topics.
In sum, and stated more formally:
Neither is this the place to provide a retrospective survey of the many past commentaries on these complex questions. I shall only append a series of quotations from a number of eminent figures - starting with Anselm of Laon, Peter Abelard (citing Jerome, Augustine and Origen), Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, Teresa of Avila, Blaise Pascal, Erasmus and John Locke - who are in general agreement that Paul's doctrines appear to be seriously at odds with the Gospel message. These excerpts suffice to show that what might be called "the Paul paradox" has been recognized by a remarkably wide spectrum of prominent individuals across the centuries.the Pauline antinomies are logical contradictions and therefore cannot in principle be resolved by means of either historical investigation or textual criticism, both of which are empirical methodologies.
II
Here then is the matrix of antinomies, along with a brief statement of the apparent logical contradiction in each case (the original Greek should always be checked, at least via Adolph Knoch's superlative interlinear [Biblio.17], as modern translations often blur these very discrepancies):
01. (Acts 9:7) || (Acts 22:9)
In the propositional calculus of modern logic, "p and not-q" is the truth-functional negation of "q and not-p". Thus "they heard but did not see" directly contradicts "they saw but did not hear". Yet this famous event on the Damascus road was the sole original justification for Paul's supposed commission in independence of Peter/Kefa and the other Apostles.
02. (Acts 9:26-29) || (Gal. 1:17-2:1)
Did Paul then travel immediately - or seventeen years later! - from Damascus to Jerusalem in order to meet with the entire Apostolic circle?
03. (Matt. 22:41-45) || (Rom. 1:3)
Paul asserts that Christ is descended from David, which Christ himself in the Gospels explicitly denies (the synoptic genealogies merely providing the OT background to this transcending self-assertion).
04. (Luke 2:49), 19:45-46 || (Acts 17:24)
The Gospels endorse the OT designation of the Temple in Jerusalem as the very House of the LORD. Paul nevertheless proclaims to the Athenians that God inhabits no sanctuary made by human hands.
05. (Acts 1:15) || (1Cor. 15:6)
How can Christ have appeared to over 500 Brothers at a time (prior to the ascension) when the entire Discipleship numbered only 120?
06. (Matt. 10:2)&40, 16:15-19 || (Gal. 2:11-13)
The explicit designation of Simon Peter as the foremost Apostle, with all the delegated authority of the Lord himself, logically precludes any other Disciple or Apostle opposing him "to his face" and (worse yet) calling him a hypocrite.
07. (Matt. 28:16-20); (Acts 10:1-11:18), 15:7-8 and 13-18 || (Gal. 2:6-9)
The Gospel doctrine is clearly that, after the resurrection, the remaining eleven Apostles were sent forth to proclaim the good news to the whole world. Paul nevertheless claims to be the one and only Apostle to the gentiles ("the" Apostle as he is often called), while Peter and the others according to this view were to be restricted to evangelizing among the Jews.
08. (Matt. 5:48); (Luke 1:6); (John 1:14), 6:53-56 || (Rom. 8:8)
The incarnation of the Logos, and also the injunction to be perfect, entail
that those who are in the flesh can indeed please God.
09. (Luke 24:36-43); (John 11:43-44), 20:27; (Acts 1:9-11); (Plp. 25) || (1Cor. 15:50)
The evangelists proclaim an incarnate resurrection and parousia (second coming), whereas Paul on the contrary takes an anti-corporeal, frankly gnostic position.
10. (Luke 4:5-8); (John 18:36), 19:18; (Acts 4:26) (Ps. 2:2) || (Rom. 13:1-5)
The celestial kingdom is described in the Gospels as of another order from the entire realm of the nations, which are ruled by Satan and whereby Christ was crucified. On the other hand, the secular authorities with all their weaponry (including (Mark 15:16) ff.??) are stated by Paul to be God's own army.
11. (Matt. 22:21) || (Acts 25:11)
Christ cedes taxes to Caesar, Paul cedes his personal security to him (Nero, no less!).
12. (Deut. 23:15-16); (Matt. 23:10-12); (John 8:31-36) || (Col. 4:1); (1Tim. 6:1-2); (Phil. 1:10-19)
The re-conceptualization in the Gospels promises to emancipate the believers from oppressive relationships, while Paul literally endorses slavery within the Discipleship.
13. (Matt. 12:46-50), 23:8-9; (Luke 14:25-26); (John 1:12-13), (John 3:1-8), (John 11:52) || (Col. 3:18-21); (1Tim. 5:8)
Christ teaches that family ties are to be renounced in favor of - that is, replaced by - the Father/Motherhood of God together with the Brother/Sisterhood of their incarnate Sons and Daughters, whereas Paul adamantly defends the traditional family structure.
14. (Matt. 19:10-12); (Luke 14:20-26), 18:28-30, 20:34-36; (Plp. 64)! || (1Cor. 7:2-16) and 9:5(?!); (Eph. 5:22-24); (1Tim. 3:1-4:3)
The Gospels stipulate that those worthy of salvation must transcend matrimony (note that (Luke 18:28-30) occurs after (Luke 4:38-39); after all,according to (Gen. 3:16), monandry was Eve's punishment for disobedience! Paul notwithstanding permits a continuation of marriage among the Disciples.
15. Num 6:5; (Lev. 19:27); (Matt. 2:23) (Jude 13:5); Tr 21 || (1Cor. 11:14)
The Hebrew tradition was that long hair on male or female is a sign of holiness and special devotion to God. Indeed the word at (Matt. 2:23) is NAZWRAIOS (the LXX or Septuagint term for Nazirite), not NAZARHNOS (i.e. someone from Nazareth). Were not John the Baptist and Christ both thus consecrated from birth?
16. (Matt. 6:24-34), 10:8; (Mark 10:13-31); (Luke 10:38-42), 14:28-33; (Acts 4:32-36)
|| (Acts 18:1-3); (1Cor. 11:34); (2Thess. 3:6-12)
Christ decrees a cessation of working for mammon, donating all private possessions to the poor, and following thereafter a lifestyle both communal and itinerant - childlike and without anxiety day-to-day like the birds and the flowers, with all shared possessions being distributed equitably among those who have need - thus lifting the curse of toil from mankind (Gen. 3:17-19). Paul's advice, on the contrary, is to "eat at home" and avoid idlers, who must either work or go hungry.
17. (Mark 7:14-23); (Luke 7:34) || (Rom. 14:21); (1Cor. 8:13)
Either we ought, or we ought not, to maintain some particular diet for religious reasons. Yet Paul agrees with neither the OT's dietary rules (kashrut) nor the Savior's remarkable midrash commentary) thereupon.
18. (Matt. 12:19) (Isa 42:2); (Luke 10:7) || (Acts 17:16-34); (Acts 20:20)
Paul preaches house-to-house, as well as in the streets and squares - contrary to Christ's paradigm.
19. (Matt. 6:5-6) || (1Tim. 2:8)
Paul demands the very same outspoken prayer which Christ condemns as exhibitionist; the Savior states that one should only pray in solitude and in secret, never openly.
20. (Matt. 18:1-4); (Mark 9:33-35); (Luke 14:7-11) || I(1Cor. 11:5-12:13)
Paul's recounting of his travels is insubordinately boastful and rivalrous - rather than humble, respectful and obedient - toward those who preceded him in the Discipleship.
21. (Matt. 5:43-48), 7:1-5, 9:10-13, 18:21-35; (John 8:2-11) || (1Cor. 5); Gal
5:12; (Tit. 3:10-11)
The Gospel attitude toward wrongdoers is merciful, yet Paul's is frankly inquisitional. Is "turning someone over to Satan for the extermination of the flesh" intended to mean delivering him to the secular authorities for execution (as in (John 19:17-18)? Are we to love our enemies or condemn and castigate them?
22. (Matt. 23:8-12) || (Acts 20:28); (1Cor. 4:15); (1Tim. 3:1-13)
Paul introduces the terms "father" and "deacon" and "bishop" to designate religious leaders - the very sort of title (along with "pastor", "minister", etc.) which Christ had explicitly prohibited.
Indeed, the passage in Matthew would seem to preclude any kind of hierarchy in the Discipleship other than simple seniority (thus PRESBUTEROS, "elder [in the faith]", in (Acts 21:18), (Jas. 5:14), I-Pet 5:1, II-(John 1) - by which criterion Paul was obliged to submit to the original Apostles, quite contrary to I(1Cor. 11:5) and (Gal. 2:6).
23. (Gen. 17:10); (Luke 2:21) || (Acts 16:3)(?!); (Gal. 5:2); Phlp 3:2; (Tit. 1:10-11)
Saying that it is necessary "to gag (EPISTOMIZEIN) circumcisionist dogs" is conceptually inappropriate in an Apostolic context. In any event, even if Christ referred to that custom parabolically - as in (Thom. 53) - he certainly did not forbid its physical practice.
24. (Luke 11:27-28); (John 4:1-30), 11:20-35, 20:11-18; (Thom. 21) || (1Cor. 14:34-35); (1Tim. 2:11-15)
Various women speak up boldly to the Savior. Later, Mariam Magdalene as first witness (!) of the resurrection is sent by Christ to "angel" (AGGELLW: p66* )* A B) his rising to the Apostles themselves. This is not a teaching of mere female submissiveness or keeping quiet in the Convocation!
25. (Luke 7:36-8:3), 10:38-42, 23:55-24:11; (John 12:1-3); (Thom. 61)b, 114; (Plp. 59)
|| (1Cor. 7:1-2); (Eph. 5:22-24)
The Gospels represent women as an intimate part of Christ's entourage - thus rescinding the punishment of husband-domination in (Gen. 3:16). Paul emphatically opposes any liberated role for females.
26. (Matt. 3:11-17), 28:19-20; (Plp. 73), 96, 115(!) || (Rom. 6:3-4); (Col. 2:12)
The Gospels endorse John's Baptism in water as signifying repentance and cleansing vis-à-vis the Torah, and which furthermore is explicitly to be undertaken "in the Name". Paul, however, sees Baptism as a metaphorical or participatory dying!
27. (Luke 23:43); (John 5:24), 8:51; (Thom. 1), 18, 19, 111; (Plp. 43) || (1Thess. 4:16-17)
Christ teaches that his Disciples will not experience death, regardless of martyrdom, whereas Paul writes of "the dead in Christ".
28. (Gen. 4:1-5), (Mark 15:10) || (1Tim. 6:10)
Paul claims that the love of money is the root of all evil; but in the paradigm cases of Cain killing Abel and the Chief Priests delivering up the Savior, envy is cited as the underlying ill. It would seem impossible to attribute the wrongdoing of either Cain or the Sadducees to mere avarice.
29. (Matt. 5:17-19), 19:16-19; (Luke 16:29-31); (Acts 21:17-24)(!!); 4QMMT:C.26b-31¹ || (Rom. 7:6); (Gal. 3:10); (Gal. 5:18)
If the entire Torah - the Decalogue in particular, but also the remaining mitzvot (moral rules) such as (Lev. 19:18) et passim - is in effect until the sky and earth pass away, then the Mosaic Law is not an obsolete curse from which believers are absolved. This was the very topic at issue when, after Paul had completed his three missionary journeys, "all of the Elders"(!) in Jerusalem required him to take the Nazirite vow - to prove his continuing adherence to the Law of Moses. (¹"The works of the Torah ... will be reckoned to you as righteousness"; from the Dead Sea Scroll, Miqsat Ma"ase ha-Torah)
30. (Matt. 7:21), 11:2-6!, 19:16-19, 25:31-46; (John 13:34)!, 14:21, 15:10;
(Jas. 2:14-26) || (Rom. 3:28); (Rom. 10:9); (1Cor. 15:35-44)
Christ says that one's calling him "Lord" is not enough, but rather that the Disciple's total obedience is demanded; both the OT and the Gospels require obedience to a plenitude of divine commandments, with resultant fruitful deeds. Indeed, it was precisely by his works - and not merely by his faith - that Christ proved his own authority to John the Baptist! Paul on the other hand states that a simple confession of faith, along with a belief in Christ's (merely spiritual, not corporeal) resurrection, suffices - a thoroughly antinomian doctrine. (This subject must be carefully distinguished from that of forgiveness - both among humans and between God and humankind - as a pre-eminently innovative tenet in the Gospels. For of course absolution logically presupposes a transgression of the rules, not their abrogation; compare e.g. (Ezek. 18) with (Matt. 6:14-15).)
31. (Gen. 49); (Jude 2:16) ff.; (Matt. 19:28); (Acts 1:13-26); (Rev. 2:2), 21:14 || (1Cor. 9:1-2); I(1Cor. 11:5-13)
Finally, we must observe the fact that the permanent tally of the Apostles was established by the Savior at exactly twelve (for obvious reasons of historical symbolism - note the symmetry at (Rev. 21:12-14), and moreover that Paul was never numbered in that circle (see also the Epistle of Barnabas 8:3).
Statistics: Posted by ebion — Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:37 am