-2

[disclaimer - I'm Jewish and don't really know much about Christianity. If this is a simple/known question - please excuse me and point me in the right direction.]

I listened to a Torah class at https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/715371/dr-shnayer-leiman/jewish-perspectives-on-early-christianity-nittel-the-ninth-of-teves-and-pope-simon-peter/

Basically he suggests and brings support for the idea that Paul was really a "Jewish spy" sent to infiltrate the early Jewish Christian establishment and to steer it away from Rabbinic Judaism. The Rabbis at the time viewed Christianity as an significant threat in that the adherents looked and acted like the other Jews while holding some ideas that were/are viewed as heretical. By making Christianity more "non-Jewish," the followers would be distinct and separated from the Rabbinic Jews.

The implications of this are vast - it seems. Paul seems to have been responsible for some significant changes in the Christian dogma. If it could be shown that he really was a "Jewish spy", then it would seem we would have a major disinformation campaign that leave us unsure about what the founder of Christianity really was teaching.

Has anyone thought about what would Christianity look like if it rejected the teaching of Paul?

2
  • 1
    It would seem a particularly bizarre approach. At the time of Paul Christianity was a small sect and worldly wisdom would expect it to die. Paul's efforts increased the size of Christianity significantly. Why would a spy simply not work towards a nullification? Jan 3 at 23:27
  • The Rabbis were clearly afraid of the risk of the early Christians - to the point that they added another blessing to the daily prayer agains the "minim" which primarily means the Christians.
    – Yehosef
    Jan 4 at 7:58
5

All of Paul's doctrine is solidly founded on the Old Testament scriptures - Moses and the Prophets. Anyone who has read his epistle to the Roman church and his epistle to the Galatian churches would be well aware of that fact.

The Apostle Peter (the chief apostle to whom Jesus gave the keys) attests that Paul's writings are 'scripture', see Peter's epistles also.

Further, the writings of James, John and Jude, whilst very different in style, thoroughly agree with and complement Paul's writings. Mark and Luke, of course, wrote their gospel accounts as associates of, and influenced by, Paul himself, so it is no surprise that their documentation, also, contains no contradiction to Paul's own words.

So also in regard to the epistle to the Hebrews. Which lead some to suspect that Paul also wrote that epistle.

To suggest that the apostle Paul was any other than a true apostle of Jesus Christ is simply an unfounded opinion based on a fundamental ignorance of the New Testament documents.

The Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke the physician, detail Paul's selfless missionary journeys throughout the Mediterranean region, his ardent devotion to Jesus Christ, his zeal for the churches scattered throughout the then known world and end shortly before his first trial before Augustus Caesar.

History informs us of Paul's subsequent martyrdom at the hands of the Emperor Nero.

So, together with the ignorance of holy scripture, I would add ignorance concerning historical facts, also, to the unfounded slander regarding Paul the apostle.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.