Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Narration about Paul of Tarsus

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Yes indeed, after all Paul wrote majority of the New Testament, though from the Qur’an we can infer anyway that the Injil was revealed directly to Isa as, that they have changed what was revealed to them, logically from our standpoint this can’t be the epistles of Paul as he was someone that came after him and never met him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/4/2018 at 4:03 AM, kingkhanwc said:

Yes indeed, after all Paul wrote majority of the New Testament, though from the Qur’an we can infer anyway that the Injil was revealed directly to Isa as, that they have changed what was revealed to them, logically from our standpoint this can’t be the epistles of Paul as he was someone that came after him and never met him.

Actually, digging on Paul is a bit problematic. Ahadith tends to discredit everything he did and accuse him of all the faulty Christian doctrines while the evidence of the accusations are nowhere to be found. That's kinda tough on the credibility of ahadith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Although Paul was the one who first started 'talking up' the idea of Trinity, if you study history, there were others who were equal if not more responsible for the spreading of this false idea about Jesus(peace be upon him). One name comes to mind, which is Emperor Constantine, who canonized the doctrine at the Council of Nicea and after that killed or expelled the disciples of Arius and other followers of non Pauline version(s) of Christianity so that he could fabricate the appearance of a unified theology of Christianity and canonize a New Testament text that was primarily written by Paul or his followers and excluded thousands of other texts regarding the life of Jesus(peace be upon him) that didn't fit with this fabrication. Those who have studied the early texts of Christianity(the ones that have not been hidden by the Vatican)  in their original languages, such as Aramaic (the language spoken by Jesus himself) know that this facade of an early unified theology of Christianity centered around the concept of Trinity and divinity of Jesus is just that, clearly a facade. Pauline Christianity was the Imperial Roman brand of Christianity which they imposed upon the world, and it was Constantine, not Paul, who was responsible for this

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
2 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Actually, digging on Paul is a bit problematic. Ahadith tends to discredit everything he did and accuse him of all the faulty Christian doctrines while the evidence of the accusations are nowhere to be found. That's kinda tough on the credibility of ahadith.

It seems that Paul is the one who really pushed the ideas of original sin, salvation through faith alone, the complete abrogation of the Law, and the divinity of Jesus. Paul berates the Galatians for accepting another Gospel, and in the same epistle, he berates the apostles. This would've been in the 40s-50s AD. Paul derived his authority not from Jesus directly, but from a revelation after Jesus, then called himself an apostle.

So I wouldn't say it's baseless. Islam basically follows the Ebionite/Jamesian line, which historically has always had issues with Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Qa'im said:

It seems that Paul is the one who really pushed the ideas of original sin, salvation through faith alone, the complete abrogation of the Law, and the divinity of Jesus. Paul berates the Galatians for accepting another Gospel, and in the same epistle, he berates the apostles. This would've been in the 40s-50s AD. Paul derived his authority not from Jesus directly, but from a revelation after Jesus, then called himself an apostle.

So I wouldn't say it's baseless. Islam basically follows the Ebionite/Jamesian line, which historically has always had issues with Paul.

Paul's take on original sin comes from Adam and Eve. Not their sin, but the fact that they died. There is still more to the forbidden fruit than disobedience. God told Adam, "In the day you eat of it you shall surely die." It happened. This is why Paul says, "as sin entered the world..." He was talking about death. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." Paul said, "To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law." There's no law for babies. Christianity has decided we are all sinners from birth.

Going back to;  "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." Paul's message was salvation is a gift of God. The big controversial verse that everyone seems to think means saved by faith actually starts out with; "By grace ye are saved..." Still a gift from God. "Through faith" No faith, no grace, "not of works, lest anyone should boast" In other words, motives behind the good works can count more than the works. Paul was big on faith, "Faith without works is dead" He certainly didn't promote dead faith so he obviously approved of good works, did enough himself. I know there are many Christians in the world think believing aka faith is good enough. They don't even have a clue, but obviously this did not come from Paul.

Dr. Russell Tardo belched out, “Every bit of the law was nailed to Calvary’s cross, having been completed and fulfilled in the person and life of Jesus Christ” in a book he wrote, Sunday Fact & Sabbath Fiction. in paul's letter to the Corinthians he wrote; “... rather, the keeping of God’s commandments is essential”, and again, "...so serve I the God of my fathers, believing all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets” There were 1001 Jewish must do laws at the time. There are still teachers who insist you believe exactly as they do, or you're going to hell. Every hoop and hurdle was a pivotal point to salvation. He spoke of the uselessness of circumcision of evil men. I know Muslims like to read that differently but it is the basic context of what he was talking.

Quote

Paul berates the Galatians for accepting another Gospel

Berated, hmmm. What does Islam think of apostates?

Quote

and in the same epistle, he berates the apostles

Paul shows up, the disciples are sitting with Gentiles. The Jew show up and the disciples move. They don't want to be seen with Gentiles in front of Jews. I think that's called hypocrasy and Paul was okay to call them on it.

Quote

Paul derived his authority not from Jesus directly, but from a revelation after Jesus

According to the record, Jesus identified Himself to Paul on the road to Damascus. Paul spent three days fasting and praying in total darkness. That's where Paul learned his new direction.

Let's put it this way. Paul met Jesus like Muhammad met Gabriel. Same amount of evidence. 

The kicker is missing. Normally Paul is accused of starting the whole trinity thing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • Advanced Member

Christians tend to dislike me because I have no love for Saul of Tarsus (Paul).

I don't see how they can justify taking the man's words as equal to the ones that they believe are those of Jesus (which wasn't even his name, another fact that they deny until they are blue in the face).

As far as my cultural Christianity and my own theological beliefs about it tend to go, I'm way more into the "Old" Testament and the three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke than I am of the rest of the "New" Testament what was largely composed by a guy who I believe had his own goals in mind for the movement that Yahshuah/Ieosus/Isa/"Jesus" started as a rebellion against the corrupt Judaism of his time (as per Reza Aslan's "Zealot"). 

For the record, my favorite books of the "Old" testament are Judges, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, and the one that Protestants refuse to accept: Wisdom (also suffixed sometimes as "of Solomon" to distinguish it from Wisdom of Sirach). This brings about another question that I can never get a straight answer on: why don't Protestants accept the seven deuterocanonical books when there are such great nuggets of truth in them (at least looking at my life experience)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 12/12/2018 at 9:35 AM, GD41586 said:

I don't see how they can justify taking the man's words as equal to the ones that they believe are those of Jesus (which wasn't even his name, another fact that they deny until they are blue in the face).

As far as my cultural Christianity and my own theological beliefs about it tend to go, I'm way more into the "Old" Testament and the three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke than I am of the rest of the "New" Testament what was largely composed by a guy who I believe had his own goals in mind for the movement that Yahshuah/Ieosus/Isa/"Jesus" started as a rebellion against the corrupt Judaism of his time (as per Reza Aslan's "Zealot"). 

For the record, my favorite books of the "Old" testament are Judges, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, and the one that Protestants refuse to accept: Wisdom (also suffixed sometimes as "of Solomon" to distinguish it from Wisdom of Sirach). This brings about another question that I can never get a straight answer on: why don't Protestants accept the seven deuterocanonical books when there are such great nuggets of truth in them (at least looking at my life experience)?

I don't know where you get that from. Jesus is Jesus, Paul is Paul. Paul wrote to churches he had started and taught a lot about Christian behavior according to what Jesus taught. 

Whose name was not his name that I have to deny until I'm blue? 

What goals did Paul have that were not in line with the teachings of Jesus?  Don't say saved by faith. Don't say trinity. Paul didn't make the laws for Gentiles, nor did he say Christians were not required to obey the law. These are old twisted tales Muslims will insist until they're blue in the face, but it still doesn't make the accusations true. It just means you believe former Islamic corruption. I went over this in a previous post.

One of the biggest complaints is Paul saying saved by faith, discarding good works, which is an obligation for Muslims thus a taboo statement. Let's look at this a bit.

How is a Muslim saved? From what I understand a Muslim is to do good works, abstain from sin, and to make a long story short, when he dies, he hopes his good works outshine his sin. In the end it is still God's decision. You getting into Heaven depends on God's grace, if you've proven your faith is worthy. So in essence you are saved by grace, through faith. Sound familiar?

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul's words were; "For by grace are ye saved through faith..." He went on to say "not of yourselves:It is the gift of God."  You can't just stroll into Heaven on your own, only God gives entrance. Next verse, " Not of works, lest any man should boast."  Besides the fact that no Muslim can tell me which works ensure Heaven, the reason was so nobody boasted about their good deeds. Why would that be important to mention? Jesus said, when you do good works, don't go telling everyone. Those that do already have their reward. In other words, boasting negates any good deeds. If this was a problem that needed be addressed in the church of the Ephesians, Paul nailed it.

So now it seems to pivot on faith. Which statements would you disagree with?    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.  Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God.  By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.  By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death.  By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark...  By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place ... obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.  Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed,     You get the picture.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Note that in each case mentioned, faith was backed up by an action. If the action was never taken there would be no evidence of faith. Paul said "Faith without works is dead."  It would also be interesting to note that the Jews were obligated to give 10% of their earnings, but were under no obligation to do "good works". According to Paul, good works are the evidence of faith. 

The seven Deuterocanonical books, meaning "belonging to the second canon", were accepted by the Roman Catholics in the council of Trent, but not by the Protestants mainly because they were not part of the Hebrew Bible, therefore not considered canonical. It is interesting as it was part of the Septuagint and not only known by but often referenced by Paul. 

Paul also makes reference to Enoch but the book of Enoch is in neither Catholic or Protestant Bible, mostly because it freaked people out, as did other epistles written by disciples that never made the good book. I'm afraid Christianity evolved ignoring many of Paul's and other teachings. Religious leaders want a comfy belief for their followers. They ignore anything unsettling and focus on how easy it is to be saved with little effort. By what I've studied, those leaders will be cast into the depths of hell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
12 hours ago, Anonymous2144 said:

In Aramaic his name is “Isshu”or “Ishu” (different spellings) , there are Christians in Iraq that call jesus “Isa” which is the Arabic version of “Isshu” or “Ishu”. 

No idea. In all my years in SC Jesus has been Isa. It's a but different depending on where you go. Just back from Mexico, spelling is the same but pronunciation is more like "Hey Zeus" I'm wondering how much it really matters.

Must we call Jesus by a particular name derived from a dead language? I wouldn't argue what He's called in any language but not sure I want to learn a dead language so I can properly pronounce it, according to the opinion of someone else. I'd need more motivation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

No idea. In all my years in SC Jesus has been Isa. It's a but different depending on where you go. Just back from Mexico, spelling is the same but pronunciation is more like "Hey Zeus" I'm wondering how much it really matters.

Must we call Jesus by a particular name derived from a dead language? I wouldn't argue what He's called in any language but not sure I want to learn a dead language so I can properly pronounce it, according to the opinion of someone else. I'd need more motivation.

If you do a deep research in the Aramaic language you would be very surprised, Jesus (pbuh) called God “Alaha” which sounds very similar to “Allah”, also his  actual name is “Isshu” in Aramaic, in Greek his name pronounced “Iesus” then in English they decided to take off the “i” and add the “j”. In the Arabic language it’s “Issa” or “Isa”. 

the Aramaic language is not dead, assyrians In Iraq speak Aramaic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
20 hours ago, Anonymous2144 said:

In Aramaic his name is “Isshu”or “Ishu” (different spellings) , there are Christians in Iraq that call jesus “Isa” which is the Arabic version of “Isshu” or “Ishu”. 

Salams,

The etymology for the Arabic name ʿĪsā is a mystery, but it's not the same as the Syriac pronunciation of Christ's name you're referring to. The historical Jesus was a Jew (at least as far as he's depicted in the Bible) and had a Hebrew name corresponding to the English name Joshua, that is יֵשׁוּעַ, (Yēšūaʿ, in Standard Biblical Hebrew: Yəhōšūaʿ (God saves)). In the first few centuries after Christ the dominant language of the near east became a specific dialect of Eastern Aramaic known as Syriac (note: this is not the same dialect Jesus would have spoken) in which an initial yōḏ becomes pronounced as if there were an initial Ālep̱ before it with a Ḥḇāṣā vowel (a long "i"), there is also a lack of a furtive paṯaḥ on final guttarals in Syriac as there is in Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic dialects, thus the lack of a pṯāḥā pronounced before the ʿayin, thus Yēšūaʿ > Yēšūʿ > ʾĪšōʿ ~ ʾĪšūʿ (ܝܫܘܥ in the Syriac script). In Arabic the transcription of the written name would be like يشوع (many Arab Christians will use the similar Yasūʿ instead of ʿĪsā) though the pronunciation is more like إيشوع which clearly isn't the same as عيسى. Furthermore in the Qurashi dialect the ʾalif maqṣūrah was always pronounced as an "ē" (with Imālāh), thus the Quranic pronunciation was more like ʿĪsē, clearly different from ʾĪšōʿ ~ ʾĪšūʿ (with an initial ālep̱ and terminal ʿayin). I wrote a more detailed post on this with citations a couple of years ago:

The etymology of this name will likely remain a mystery with no clear and definite answer, however it is definitely the case that the Syriac pronunciation you're referring to is not the same as the Quranic name. It's also likely that the Quranic name was in usage already by the various Christian communities in Arabia (as there was a major presence of various Christian groups all around the peninsula).

God knows.

___________________________________________________

The Latinized Greek version of his name is, however, quite obviously an attempt to preserve the Hebrew name as best as could be done in those languages, so though as @GD41586 that it isn't his name (in that he would have never called himself Ιησους or Iesus (eventually, Jesus)), this is how his name was transcribed in a somewhat logical manner over the centuries. The Greek transcription was an already accepted one for the name Joshua dating back to the Septuagint (a translation of the OT into Koine Greek), thus the jump from יֵשׁוּעַ > Ιησους (Yēšūaʿ > Iēsous) can be explained with the iota representing the semivowel "y", a substitution of the "š" of the šin with the closest Greek sound, the "s" of the "sigma" (since there is no "sh" sound in Greek), and the terminal sigma was to indicate the case as Greek is an inflected language. In the Vulgate Latin, elsewhere the name Yēšūaʿ seems to be transcribed as Iosue like the Standard Biblical Hebrew Yəhōšūaʿ, even in books written in late Biblical Hebrew, while Christ's name is transcribed by Jerome as Iesus (irregular fourth declension), this transcription belongs to only a handful of other people as well -- notably Ben Sirach. It's a reasonable assumption to think this was done in order to distinguish from other Joshuas mentioned in the Bible and to provide as close a rendering of his name as possible, and obviously there's an element of tradition associated with using Jesus. It doesn't seem sensible to say it's the wrong name in order to have a gotcha moment with our Christian friend, @Son of Placid.

wassalam

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 12/20/2018 at 10:16 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

It doesn't seem sensible to say it's the wrong name in order to have a gotcha moment with our Christian friend,

As long as Jesus isn't saying "Call me Isshu of don't call me at all." 

A lot of Christians would be disappointed to find out they're answers to prayer were only coincidences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
Guest Melchizedek
On 12/20/2018 at 7:31 AM, Son of Placid said:

 

Note that in each case mentioned, faith was backed up by an action. If the action was never taken there would be no evidence of faith. Paul said "Faith without works is dead."  It would also be interesting to note that the Jews were obligated to give 10% of their earnings, but were under no obligation to do "good works". According to Paul, good works are the evidence of faith. 

 

It was actually James the Just who wrote that in the gospel of James (James 2:14-26)  in response to the "faith alone" doctrine espoused by Paul.
Paul advances an idea that went against what the Jerusalem apostles upheld, mainly one of close abherence to the law, as well as one of "works".  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Hi Guest Melchizedek,

Quote from your post: It was actually James the Just who wrote that in the gospel of James (James 2:14-26)  in response to the "faith alone" doctrine espoused by Paul.
Paul advances an idea that went against what the Jerusalem apostles upheld, mainly one of close abherence to the law, as well as one of "works".  

 

You are right that the words, ‘faith without works is dead,’ were written by James, but actually there is quite a misunderstanding of what you call the ‘faith alone’ belief. 

--- Let’s see what James said in the verses in James 2:14-26 Faith Without Works Is Dead

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

--- James is really saying that ‘Faith’ is an action word. --- You ‘act’ on what you believe, and he gives the example of someone in need who would be helped, and not sent away empty handed.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 

--- James says, “Show me what your faith looks like. Where is it? What is it doing?”

19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 

--- Just to say, “I believe in God,’ is no commitment to serve Him, or to receive anything from Him.

20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 

--- Faith produces action so without action there is no evidence of faith, though some may believe they have faith.

23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

--- So works,’ in accordance with one’s faith’ are necessary to prove that faith is active.

26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

--- Now let’s see what Paul said in Ephesians 2:8-10, --- 8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”

--- Some read it this way, --- For by ((God’s) grace you have been saved through (your) faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God (a gift cannot be earned, so God’s gift of salvation is free), 9 not of works (not of any human effort), lest anyone should boast. (So salvation is not attained by good works.)

--- But verse 10 starts with the word ‘For,’ which means that it is a continuation of the paragraph, and it says:

10 For we (believers) are His workmanship (workers), created (recreated to new life) in Christ Jesus for (or, to do) good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”

--- Christianity comes with a ‘work schedule.’ --- Notice the words, --- the ‘good works,’ which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”

--- ‘We are saved to serve,’ therefore  Paul does not just say to do ‘good works,’ but to do the ‘good works’ that God has assigned for each of us to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 9/3/2018 at 10:26 PM, Mohammadi_follower said:

Salam aleykoum, 

Do we have some narrations about paul of Tarsus? 

He was a Jew that renounced his Judaism and took up Christianity 40 years after jesus left if memory serves me correctly 

Edited by theEndIsNear
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest Guesttester
On 9/3/2018 at 10:26 PM, Mohammadi_follower said:

Salam aleykoum, 

Do we have some narrations about paul of Tarsus? 

Well the Quran specifically says that the Jews hid God’s word behind their back and wrote the books with their own hands saying it’s from God , so I think that covers that, basically that anyone who writes their books with their own hands and says it’s from God is against the truth 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...