Paul: Was He False?

Welcome. Today, we will discuss the many accusations against the apostle Paul. Many Christians, atheists, and more have come against him, saying he was a false prophet, misogynistic, and more. Are these true according to the scriptures? Let's find out.

1. Unlearned and Unstable Wrest (2 Peter 3:14-17)
2. Paul the Hypocrite? (Matthew 23 13 and Acts 23 6)
3. Contradicting Conversion Stories (Acts 9 and 22).
4. Did Jesus Foretell Paul's False Claim of Seeing Him in the Desert? (Matthew 24 26 and Acts 9)
5. Did Paul Say We Could Sin? (Romans 7 19)
6. Did Paul Forbid Marriage and Contradict Himself? (1 Corinthians 7:28 and Hebrews 13 4).
7. Paul Quoted Pagans (Acts 17 28, 1 Corinthians 15 33, and Titus 1 12)
8. Did Paul Lie? (Romans 3 7 and 2 Corinthians 12 16).
9. Did Paul Condone Eating Food Sacrificed to Idols? (1 Corinthians 10 25 and Daniel 1 8).
10. Was Paul Misogynistic? And Did He Say Men Must Never Cover Their Head? (2 Corinthians 14 34 and 2 Timothy 2 11)
11. Did Paul Claim to be Christ? Or Better Than Christ? (Galatians 1 16, 2 20, and Galatians 4 14).

What should we watch out for when reading Paul's letters?

What does this mean? It means that those without the understanding of the scriptures will not truly understand Paul. I have heard some people accuse him by saying that he comes with a mystery, yet the Messiah did not. In the verses where he uses the word mystery, mustérion , it actually translates to "secret". It did not mean what we say it means today. Paul is revealing something unknown to his readers. Not something that he himself has come up with, but something that they did not understand about the scriptures.

This principle of being learned in the scripture before going to another one can be applied to all of the scriptures, not just Paul's writings. With that being said, let's get into the accusations.

Jesus says, " But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." What was Paul? A Pharisee, and "the son of a Pharisee" out of his own mouth. But we have to take into account one thing; Paul believed in Christ. He did not at one time in his life, but later on, he did. The Pharisees that Jesus is addressing here do not believe in him. If this evidence against him were true, how could we trust that Nicodemus was righteous? He talked with Christ to learn from him, (John 3:1–21), he defends Jesus by reminding the Sanhedrin that the law requires that a person is heard before being judged (John 7:50–51), and he helped bury Christ. (John 19:39–42). Why should we trust Nicodemus and not Paul if we are going to bring up his past as a Pharisee? Was Moses not thought to be an Egyptian? Who knows what kind of stuff he might have done while living as one. Should we now discredit Moses? Absolutely not.

This claim says that the contradicting conversion stories in Acts invalidate Paul. But I do not believe that they are contradictory. In Acts 9 7 reports we that the men did not see anybody when Paul had the vision, but Acts 22 9 says they saw a light. Notice how it says they saw a light, not a person. This is not a contradiction. These men saw a light but saw no form or person in it.

Acts 9 reports that the men heard a voice, but Acts 22 appears to be saying that they did not hear the voice but this is not so. In Acts 22, the stress is on the voice. This means that the men heard a sound (Acts 9), but that it was not intelligible to them (Acts 22).

In Acts 9, Paul claims to see the Messiah on the road to Damascus, which is in the desert. Because of this, some have claimed that Christ was actually prophesying that Paul would do this and that we should not believe him. But what is the context of Christ's words?

First, notice how he also mentioned that some might say he is in the secret chambers. Paul did not claim this. '

Christ in no way is prophesying that Paul, a false prophet, would arise and make the claim to see him. He is simply warning people to be wary of those who claim to see the Messiah. It is possible that they are not even claiming to see Jesus. Remember, many Jews rejected him. If they claimed to see the Messiah, they would probably be making up their own.

This verse by itself seems to imply that Paul while being in the truth, confesses to still doing evil things. Is he advocating this?

Paul is saying that the law is spiritual and good, but he, made of carnal flesh, is not. He, like everyone else who believes, is still prone to sin. It is a war within the mind of the believer to do what is right or wrong. The answer is to trust in the Messiah, which would produce righteous works.

According to some, Paul is saying we should not get married but later on he says we should. What are these verses really saying? Read it carefully. In Corinthians, he says that these people have not sinned. They have done nothing wrong. But they will face troubles in life. In Hebrews, he is saying that marriage should be honored. He is not contradicting himself. All he is saying is that the marriage bed should be honored, and while it is not a sin to be married, you should be careful because married couples tend to go through a lot. Cross reference this with 1 Corinthians 7 1-2 where he advocates both celibacy and having a spouse. Both can be good, but we must be careful when deciding which one we are to do.

Paul quoted philosophers that were prevalent during the New Testament time period. Because these men were pagans, it is seen as evidence against Paul. But let's take a look at some of these quotes. If Paul quoted pagans and believed in what they say, how can he be right? Did he say they were righteous? Or is he using their words against them to reach a culture that is well learned in their words? We must take into context one thing; Paul was a Roman citizen. Acts 22 27. And so were the people he wrote too. They would know what the Romans think, the same way when the tribes were in Egypt they would have gotten to know what Egyptian culture and thought was like.

He is joining two different quotes here.

These quotes, while obviously not being in reference to the one true God, are now being used to refer to him. In a way, Paul uses these words against them.

Though Menander was a heathen, what he said does not contradict the Bible. Throughout the Bible, especially in the book of Proverbs, we are told that those we surround ourselves can be a bad influence on us. Proverbs 12 26 and 13 20.

The last man he quoted was Epimenides of Gnossus.

Is Paul saying all Cretans are liars? In the two previous verses, it talks about how there are deceivers there. Paul is referencing Epimenides words on how all Cretans are liars, though ironically he himself was a Cretan. Against the Cretans who taught that Zeus was not immortal, he taught that he was.

Cretans themselves were stereotyped as being liars, not just by Epimenides. "The very word “to Cretize” (kretizein), or to play the part of a Cretan, was invented as a word synonymous with “to deceive,” “to utter a lie;” just as corinthiazein. “to play the part of a Corinthian,” signified to commit a still darker moral offence." (Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers).

We cannot condemn Paul for quoting pagans because he uses their own words to condemn their gods. Furthermore, we cannot do this when we can find an example in the Old Testament where a prophet does the same. In Isaiah 14, The reason why the King of Babylon is described as "the morning star" is because the Babylonians believed that their king was the child of their gods Bel and Ishtar, both of whom were associated with the planets- they thought that their King was the planet, Venus.

The passage about "Lucifer" is referencing a Babylonian myth. Heylel, the morning star (Venus), tried to climb the walls of the northern city of the gods to make himself king of heaven, only to be driven from the sky by the rising sun. In Isaiah 14:12-20, this myth is given a historical application. Isaiah is mocking the myth, and saying that the King of Babylon was acting like Heylel in the myth- but would be thrown down not by another planet, but by the Almighty himself. (What You Should Know About the Devil)

Paul did not quote these men because he believed they were righteous. But what they said was not too far from the truth. If a Buddhist says murder is wrong, are we gonna say he is wrong? No.

These scriptures are used to say that Paul has admitted to lying about the Gospel, or more specifically his conversion on the road to Damascus.

Let's read the context of these passages, first starting with Romans 3.

Paul is not admitting to lying. Here he is asking a question and answering it to help those in Rome to understand the scripture. If our sin helps others to see how righteous the Most High is by comparison, why are we judged? But the Most High is fair, so he is qualified to judge them as a sinner. Just because our sins shows that he is good by comparison does not mean that we should continue sinning. Obeying him would in no way take the glory away from him.

Now let's take a look at 2 Corinthians 12 16 in context.

Paul is saying, "I'm not below the others, but I am humble. I have done no wrong against you, yet you make me look like I am false." He says he is not burdening them, but then later on in the same letter, he admits to lying? That would make no sense. He is referring to the ones who accuse him of burdening them. We can confirm this by reading the next three verses.

There were believers in the church that accused Paul of burdening them. Paul was simply refuting them.

According to the accusers, Paul is contradicting the law that says we cannot eat anything dedicated to a false god. In the Old Testament, Israel was given many laws to avoid paganism, but there is no law that talks about a believer eating food dedicated to a false deity. Why? Because all of the believers were in Israel and the only reason they would be doing so if they were taken captive in another land or if they were practicing idolatry. Eating food dedicated to Baal or Dagon would not be something for them to worry about.

"If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake." But if you go to verse 28 you will see that if anyone tells you that this food was offered to some false god, abstain from it if it is for your conscience's sake. So these verses are not about eating whatever you want. Here is what it is about; any clean food that is offered to you, don't worry about it and just eat it with no problem. Even if it was offered to a false idol, you are eating it without reverence to that idol.

The Corinthians here would have been surrounded by pagan culture, so it might be a stumbling block for someone to eat this food, especially if they are weak in their faith. The best course of action would be to not eat this around such a person and to not eat it yourself if you were such a person.

They also use Daniel as an example. He did not eat the king's food. Why? Because it must have been offered to idols. But that is not why he refused to eat.

This can be taken two different ways.

1. The meat was unclean.
2. Although eating the food would not be a sin, even if clean, it would be a stumbling block for others.

At first glance, Paul is telling the women, "Do not speak. Just listen to the men, You do not have the ability to teach the gospel to others."

In 1 Corinthians 11 14 it says it is against nature for men to have long hair and women short hair. I do not think he meant nature as in animals. The word has multiple meanings, including in the Greek;
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
2.
the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.

The word used here was phusis, which is translated as nature, inherent nature, origin, birth. For example, you may say that human nature was corrupted when man fell.

There have always been differences between the sexes, so it seems Paul is saying that men usually have their hair short and women have it long. The only time to my knowledge that long hair and men is mentioned in the Torah was when a man took the Nazarite vow. It seems more of a way of not unnecessarily offending someone in the faith or who would come to the faith rather than being an objective law in and of itself.

If misogyny is the case, why do we see women being praised for their role in the New Testament churches, the ones Paul wrote to? Phoebe in Romans 16 1 is the first one to be given any respect in this chapter, Priscilla is commended for risking her life in verse 3, Mary is commended for her hard work in verse 6, and more women in this chapter alone. And Galatians 3 28 says that the men and women are made one in the Messiah, and the chapter itself talks about how because every part of the body has its role, so does every believer have their role. We also know that women were prominent in the Old Testament, something Paul would be very familiar with as a Pharisee. Deborah (Judges Chapter 4 to 5) was a prophetess who was given credit for leading the battle against the Canaanites after Barak refused to leave without her. She was certainly allowed to speak and say what the law says.

In speaking of the law, what law was Paul referencing when he said, " they are commanded to be under obedience as also said the law"? When Eve tempted Adam, she was made subject to him as a punishment. This law was carried over into the Old Covenant and was also made to be carried into the New Covenant. Women are spiritually equal, but physically the man is the head. This has always been the case, so for a Christian to say that Paul is being misogynistic by saying this, they say that everyone else was too.

What does it mean that the women must be silent and learn? We know that the church order is based on the order of the household, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.

1. God
2. Christ
3. Husband
4. Wife

The women here showed their devotion to this order by covering their heads. We also know that women were prophetesses. Should we conclude that if a woman were to receive a prophecy in the church that she should be silent? Should we also conclude that any woman with the gospel may not give it out? 1 Corinthians 11 5, which tells us women prayed and prophesied in church, concludes that this erroneous conclusion is not found in scripture.

The women were not given an authoritative manner in the church itself, but this does not mean they were totally prohibited from ever teaching the word. This also does not mean that the man is given authority to do whatever he pleases to his wife. Remember, the man is subject to Christ, who is subject to God. Whatever the man does cannot go against God, or else what he does is invalidated. And nowhere in the Old or New Testament do we see a positive example of a husband abusing his wife.

And for those of you who take this as a universal commandment for men to never cover their head and women to always cover their head when praying or prophesying, read Ezekiel 44 18. In regards to the priests, "They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat."

To learn more about supposed misogyny in the Bible, see Evil Doctrines Debunked.. I am writing an article on the role of the man in the household, showing what he can and cannot do.

Some have accused Paul of saying he is better than Jesus, or that through some sort of divine incarnation he is or became Jesus. This verse is thought to be saying that he claims to be the Son. But if we read the previous verse we see that he is saying that the Son is in him, not that he is the Son.

Is Paul saying he literally died and now Christ is the one we are speaking too? In the previous verse, Paul had said that he was dead.

Dead to the law. The law demands that we die because at some point in our life we have broken that law. When we receive Christ, we become "dead to the law" because we are "crucified/impaled with Messiah."

He didn't die for us so that our sins could be blotted out and we could return to our old ways. In him we can find redemption and salvation from the penalty. And Christ himself says we must be born again.

What is being said here is that those who are faithful died with him, for they are born again. Not an actual death, but the one we used to be has died. Romans 6 6.

And finally, in Galatians 4 14, is Paul trying to elevate himself to the position of Christ by comparing how these people treated him to how they would treat Christ? If we compare this to Matthew 10 40 we can see that this is false.

He was letting them know that they had treated him well.

I will be adding more to this article, but for now, I will leave it published to go ahead and answer a few of the accusations made against Paul and to answer any more if someone comments and leaves one. Peace and blessings and all praises to the Most High.