Paul: A False Prophet? Mark Responds...

In a previous post, I discussed how my friend Mark doesn't accept the writings of Paul as inspired, and considers him (Paul) a false prophet. Mark responded to me in an email that he has agreed to let me post here. Mark makes some interesting points, several of which I'll respond to in a seperate post.

Do I think that Paul is a false prophet? Yes, I do, however because of how we interpret his writings I come to this conclusion. If we can find a way to interpret his writings in a way that he is consistent and not contradictory to things in the Torah, and in Jesus' teaching, then I would have no problem with Paul. When I was talking with our pastor about this a few weeks ago, I told him that I believe that unless we can properly understand Paul, his writings are dangerous. Unfortunately Paul is not alive today to be able to explain what he meant in his letters, nor do we have all the information to understand who, what, when, where, and why he is writing what he does. If Paul meant to say, what most Protestants interpret him to mean, then under the Torah he would be sentenced to death, however there are things in the Torah that can only be done in an Israelite state that governs itself by the Torah, and that has not existed for thousands of years, and could be argued that it never existed, a country completely following God that is. So if Paul was alive today, and in agreement with Protestant interpretation, I would not call for his death, but that people should not follow him.

This is actually what Gamaliel had intended in his response, and is consistent with what we know of Gamaliel. His response is that if these men are preaching something they made up, people will figure it out and abandon them. However if it is from God, then you can not oppose God and what he wants to do, and Gamaliel could believe this is a test; "The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut 13:3) Though there are legends that Gamaliel became a Christian, they are only legends, and Gamaliel is not in any way endorsing the apostles as being from God. This is also how Gamaliel would see Roman occupation of Israel, the rise of Christianity, of Islam, the LDS Church, and many other religions that test Israel's faithfulness to God.

God's intervening to fight for ideas that are true, and suppressing those that are not, does not reflect what Gamaliel believes, or how I think that God actually acts. Throughout the Bible there are multiple things that people could say "why didn't God just keep that from happening?" Why did he allow his people; to follow other gods, lose the Law, war against each other, become so evil in his eyes that he has them exiled. God even though he is completely sovereign over everything, he allows people great freedom to obey or to disobey him. They are even allowed to write new things and gain millions of followers, Islam and LDS are great examples of that.

I too am trying to figure out how Paul works, if he does, within Christianity. I just have not found a good way to do it. Even if I could, I am not sure I would be able to convince people to view Paul in a different manner. Currently, I don't know how to reconcile Paul. God, I believe is consistent in how he deals with people especially his people. Salvaging consistency, salvages my belief in God much in the same way your belief that God would protect the Bible salvages your belief in God.

When it comes to the "fruit" of Paul being judged by the size and character of the Church today it could be silly to say that Paul was not a false prophet. The history of the Church and it's present condition is in a miry, Joseph Smith has better fruit by that standing. But the "fruit" that Jesus speaks of, is a persons character, life and relationship to him, not of how well their message spreads. Like he says in Matthew 7:21-27:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

I don't know if is Paul wrong, but our understanding, and following him over Jesus is wrong at the very least. Is he in line with Jesus or do we make Jesus line up with Paul in order to maintain a book that people put together? People that God allows to do evil things, and to disobey him.

Does God allowing people to choose to disobey him, make him unconcerned, uninvolved, or too weak that it is not worth pursuing a relationship with him? I think this is like the prodigal son, it is not the father that doesn't want the relationship, it was the son. The father wasn't unconcerned about his son, he saw him coming a long way off. He was not uninvolved, he gave his son everything he asked for, and made a feast when he came back. He was not too weak to go find his son and bring him back, but the son was the one that needed to come back, and see why he needed to come back. We both are prodigals, that need to get home. I for one am the one that is unconcerned, uninvolved, and too weak most of the time to find my way home. For me to find that way I need to start in the Torah and make my way from there.

-Mark