How do we answer Muslim assertions that St. Paul the Apostle was a false prophet?

[Reuben_J]

He didn’t start Christianity and he is not a false prophet.
Obviously.

 

[MartinJordan]

Muslims claim that it was Paul who started Christianity, though I find this argument very weak, I wanted to see how others would answer.

Most Muslims Ive known or met have not talked about Paul…at all. Maybe those who spend time on the internet?

MJ

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Muslims claim that it was Paul who started Christianity, though I find this argument very weak, I wanted to see how others would answer.

To say Christian Apostle Paul was a false prophet who started Christianity is the same as saying the Islamic Prophet Mohammad was a false prophet who started Islam.

Both arguments are too weak.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

It is a non-starter. Either they are ignorant of Christianity or just being sour grape.

However, this is not an official teaching of Islam. Actually this is quite a recent trend among Muslims vis-à-vis Christianity. Thus not all Muslims would go along this line in rebutting Christianity. But you would nevertheless meet many of them who jump at the bandwagon in demonizing Paul.

Perhaps that is the easy way to dismiss Christianity outright and not to put weight on it for a serious intellectual or theological discussion. I have the feeling that those Muslims who purposely use this line of argument know that they are not going to make any serious or factual representation in their argument and therefore a futile one.

Thus the accusation against Paul is not a genuine attempt at honest discussion but rather a tactic in the debate itself. By creating bogeymen in Paul, by default they do not have to answer much of the reference in the Bible; and those reference to Paul’s epistles would be completely ignored outright.

That does not make them right though.

So I cannot see any benefit for them to use Paul as the bogeyman in Christianity.

 

[drac16]

Peter calls him “our beloved brother” in 2 Peter 3:15. If he was a false prophet, surely Peter would have said do.

 

[LtTony]

Muslims claim that it was Paul who started Christianity, though I find this argument very weak, I wanted to see how others would answer.

Better study up on Paul, “Pauline Christianity”, the Trinity, Council of Nicea, 325 AD, and on and on and on. Those are their usual talking points. Know the facts, the truth, about those topics, and you will be fine. Bottom line, as others have stated, the other Apostles accepted Paul and his teachings.
As a Catholic, you also have Sacred Tradition to base your replies. That’s something Bible-only Christians don’t have, unfortunately.

 

[dronald]

I wrote quite a bit on this topic years ago. I contrasted some of the quranic claims with the claims of Paul and the other apostles.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=878074

I also asked the same question here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=907089

 

[MartinJordan]

better study up on paul, “pauline christianity”, the trinity, council of nicea, 325 ad, and on and on and on. Those are their usual talking points. Know the facts, the truth, about those topics, and you will be fine. Bottom line, as others have stated, the other apostles accepted paul and his teachings.
As a catholic, you also have sacred tradition to base your replies. That’s something bible-only christians don’t have, unfortunately.

+1

mj

 

[mackbrislawn]

Muslims claim that it was Paul who started Christianity, though I find this argument very weak, I wanted to see how others would answer.

In a sense, they’re right, in that he was a vigorous missionary and founded numerous churches. But the accusation that Paul founded Christianity as we know it is not new, nor unique to Muslims. Did he change the church theologically? Here is their argument:

Paul, of course, was the one who insisted that there was no need to follow Torah nor the Mosaic Law. In his letter to the Galatians we learn that Paul is disappointed that they have listened to someone else, preachers who came after Paul and told the Galatians they did need to attend to the Mosaic Law and get circumcised. Who were these teachers? Apparently from the Jerusalem church, and ones who also were supposed pillars of that church. Paul mentions those who came down from Jerusalem and from James (James, the kinsman, the brother, of Jesus no less!) and taught Paul’s converts they needed to become Jews first, and be circumcised. These were the dreaded Judaizers, pillars of the original Jerusalem Church.

But wouldn’t one think that the original, purest, form of Christianity would be found in the Jerusalem Church? That’s logical. But that is not the form of Christianity that survived. Pauline Christianity did. All of Christianity is Pauline, either Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. Hence, Paul founded Christianity. Only the Pauline form of Christianity survived.

What happened then to the Church in Jerusalem? Well, as we know, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. Any Christians remaining there would have been slaughtered along with everyone else. So the original church in Jerusalem ceased to exist. It is also said, however, that the Christians in Jerusalem escaped across the Jordan river. These apparently became what became known as the Ebionites, Christians who adhered to the Mosaic Law. They persisted for awhile as an heretical sect.

Of course, this group certainly did not accept Paul as a prophet nor apostle, nor accept his writings as scripture.

So, this is a brief outline of the reasoning of those who do not believe in Paul as an apostle and do not believe his writings are scripture.

 

[SalamKhan]

I am not speaking of people. Please do not stereotype me.

I am speaking of the doctrines of the Islamic faith.

Experts (i.e. those who know much more than you or I) have clearly and consistently explained that Islam does not tolerate questioning, reasoning or dissent. It simply demands belief.

Good grief.

Simply untrue, the classical theological schools, the orthodox Ashari, and heretical Mutazilite, held the position that belief out of blind conformity is not belief at all, although the Asha`ris evetually agreed with the more lenient position of the orthodox Maturidi school, that belief out of blind conformity is a sin but not disbelief.

 

[SalamKhan]

Muslims assert this simply because the doctrine he taught was false, even in the earliest centuries of Christianity he was accused of being an apostate by some groups and was claimed by many of the gnostic dualists as being one of their own. The fact that the authenticity of the pastoral epistles are now being called into doubt, may lend support to the claims of the gnostic dualists. I don’t think it’s a major issue anyway, just a possibility as to when the defection of the Christians took place and who was responsible.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Muslims assert this simply because the doctrine he taught was false, even in the earliest centuries of Christianity he was accused of being an apostate by some groups and was claimed by many of the gnostic dualists as being one of their own. The fact that the authenticity of the pastoral epistles are now being called into doubt, may lend support to the claims of the gnostic dualists. I don’t think it’s a major issue anyway, just a possibility as to when the defection of the Christians took place and who was responsible.

I have a question I am curious about, what happened eventually to the non-apostate Christians? Did any of them survive long?

 

[LtTony]

"Experts (i.e. those who know much more than you or I) have clearly and consistently explained that Islam does not tolerate questioning, reasoning or dissent. It simply demands belief. "

Simply untrue, the classical theological schools, the orthodox Ashari, and heretical Mutazilite, held the position that belief out of blind conformity is not belief at all, although the Asha`ris evetually agreed with the more lenient position of the orthodox Maturidi school, that belief out of blind conformity is a sin but not disbelief.

The Quran has not been put under the microscope like the Bible. It just hasn’t. Scholars fear death if they do. The Muslim world doesn’t produce any books on the subject; heck, the Muslim world produces few books period.

" ‘‘Between fear and political correctness, it’s not possible to say anything other than sugary nonsense about Islam,’’ said one scholar at an American university who asked not to be named, referring to the threatened violence as well as the widespread reluctance on United States college campuses to criticize other cultures."

“To Muslims the Koran is the very word of God, who spoke through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad: ‘‘This book is not to be doubted,’’ the Koran declares unequivocally at its beginning. Scholars and writers in Islamic countries who have ignored that warning have sometimes found themselves the target of death threats and violence, sending a chill through universities around the world.”

nytimes.com/2002/03/02/arts/scholars-are-quietly-offering-new-theories-of-the-koran.html

 

[thephilosopher6]

Muslims assert this simply because the doctrine he taught was false, even in the earliest centuries of Christianity he was accused of being an apostate by some groups and was claimed by many of the gnostic dualists as being one of their own. The fact that the authenticity of the pastoral epistles are now being called into doubt, may lend support to the claims of the gnostic dualists. I don’t think it’s a major issue anyway, just a possibility as to when the defection of the Christians took place and who was responsible.

If Paul had been a false apostle, then there would have been more widespread condemnation of his teachings, and he would have been more fully rejected, but he was not. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 demonstrates this, the apostles actually sided with Paul, and scholars generally believe this to be historical. Paul also notes how he had met the apostles, like in Galatians 2, and in fact this is one of the criteria scholars use to argue for the existence of Jesus, the fact that Paul knew the relatives and friends of Jesus, and mentioned them in such off the cuff ways.

Also, why is there not condemnation from the apostolic fathers? Clement of Rome, who knew Peter the apostle, and Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, and Polycarp who were all disciples of John the Apostle. Yet we see them use his work to battle heresy and further spread the gospel, and as already shown each and everyone of them knew at least one of the apostles, three out of four of which were disciples of John. In fact, Clement and Ignatius are the earliest to quote his work outside of the New Testament.

Early Islam also seemed to grant Paul apostleship, or at the very least being a good follower, he wasn’t excluded until later on. One notable Muslim writer, Imam Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (1214-1273) in his commentary of Surah 61 writes on Paul:

“It was said that this verse was revealed about the apostles of Jesus, may peace and blessing be upon him. Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter and Paul who went to Rome; Andrew and Matthew who went to the land of the cannibals; Thomas who went to Babel in the eastern lands; Philip who went to Africa; John went to Dac-sos(?) which is the tribe to whom the sleepers of the cave belonged; Jacob went to Jerusalem; Bartholomew went to the lands of Arabia, specifically Al-Hijaz; Simon who went to the Barbarians; Judas and Barthas(?) who went to Alexandria and its surrounding regions.”

Also want to note that Muhammad plagiarized Paul in the Hadith:

MUHAMMAD: “The Muslims are like a single man. If the eye is afflicted, then the whole body is afflicted. If the head is afflicted, then the whole body is afflicted.” - Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2586, Grade: Sahih

PAUL: “But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.” - 1 Corinthians 12:24-26

 

[SalamKhan]

"Experts (i.e. those who know much more than you or I) have clearly and consistently explained that Islam does not tolerate questioning, reasoning or dissent. It simply demands belief. "

The Quran has not been put under the microscope like the Bible. It just hasn’t. Scholars fear death if they do. The Muslim world doesn’t produce any books on the subject; heck, the Muslim world produces few books period.

" ‘‘Between fear and political correctness, it’s not possible to say anything other than sugary nonsense about Islam,’’ said one scholar at an American university who asked not to be named, referring to the threatened violence as well as the widespread reluctance on United States college campuses to criticize other cultures."

“To Muslims the Koran is the very word of God, who spoke through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad: ‘‘This book is not to be doubted,’’ the Koran declares unequivocally at its beginning. Scholars and writers in Islamic countries who have ignored that warning have sometimes found themselves the target of death threats and violence, sending a chill through universities around the world.”

nytimes.com/2002/03/02/arts/scholars-are-quietly-offering-new-theories-of-the-koran.html

You’re completely ignorant of the transmission of the Qur’an, it has long been established that the transmission of the Qur’an is Mutawatir, that is terminology used in Hadith criticism where the chain of transmission contains reliable narrators so numerous to the point that it would be impossible for all of their testimonies to concur on a fabrication or interpolation. You are not an expert in the Islamic sciences, nor are the people you cite, experts in Islamic sciences. It’s not as simple as applying modern Western literary criticism. Transmission of the Qur’an in a nutshell was through controlled mass memorisation in a world where memorisation was already the norm, not to mention controlled scribal transmission; top that off with the same criticism that was applied to Hadith reports, an entire science in itself.

 

[thephilosopher6]

If Paul had been a false apostle, then there would have been more widespread condemnation of his teachings, and he would have been more fully rejected, but he was not. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 demonstrates this, the apostles actually sided with Paul, and scholars generally believe this to be historical. Paul also notes how he had met the apostles, like in Galatians 2, and in fact this is one of the criteria scholars use to argue for the existence of Jesus, the fact that Paul knew the relatives and friends of Jesus, and mentioned them in such off the cuff ways.

Also, why is there not condemnation from the apostolic fathers? Clement of Rome, who knew Peter the apostle, and Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, and Polycarp who were all disciples of John the Apostle. Yet we see them use his work to battle heresy and further spread the gospel, and as already shown each and everyone of them knew at least one of the apostles, three out of four of which were disciples of John. In fact, Clement and Ignatius are the earliest to quote his work outside of the New Testament.

Early Islam also seemed to grant Paul apostleship, or at the very least being a good follower, he wasn’t excluded until later on. One notable Muslim writer, Imam Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (1214-1273) in his commentary of Surah 61 writes on Paul:

“It was said that this verse was revealed about the apostles of Jesus, may peace and blessing be upon him. Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter and Paul who went to Rome; Andrew and Matthew who went to the land of the cannibals; Thomas who went to Babel in the eastern lands; Philip who went to Africa; John went to Dac-sos(?) which is the tribe to whom the sleepers of the cave belonged; Jacob went to Jerusalem; Bartholomew went to the lands of Arabia, specifically Al-Hijaz; Simon who went to the Barbarians; Judas and Barthas(?) who went to Alexandria and its surrounding regions.”

Also want to note that Muhammad plagiarized Paul in the Hadith:

MUHAMMAD: “The Muslims are like a single man. If the eye is afflicted, then the whole body is afflicted. If the head is afflicted, then the whole body is afflicted.” - Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2586, Grade: Sahih

PAUL: “But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.” - 1 Corinthians 12:24-26

Just wanted to give an article better detailing some of my points: answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/paul-historical.html

 

[SalamKhan]

If Paul had been a false apostle, then there would have been more widespread condemnation of his teachings, and he would have been more fully rejected, but he was not. Acts 15 and Galatians 2 demonstrates this, the apostles actually sided with Paul, and scholars generally believe this to be historical. Paul also notes how he had met the apostles, like in Galatians 2, and in fact this is one of the criteria scholars use to argue for the existence of Jesus, the fact that Paul knew the relatives and friends of Jesus, and mentioned them in such off the cuff ways.

Also, why is there not condemnation from the apostolic fathers? Clement of Rome, who knew Peter the apostle, and Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, and Polycarp who were all disciples of John the Apostle. Yet we see them use his work to battle heresy and further spread the gospel, and as already shown each and everyone of them knew at least one of the apostles, three out of four of which were disciples of John. In fact, Clement and Ignatius are the earliest to quote his work outside of the New Testament.

What I also said:

I don’t think it’s a major issue anyway, just a possibility as to when the defection of the Christians took place and who was responsible.

Acts is said to have been written by Luke, a companion of Paul. Details about the Apostolic Fathers are not 100% certain, from what I’ve seen, it’s often said that such and such Apostolic Father is ‘likely’ or ‘probably’ or ‘possibly’ connected to such and such disciple of Isa ibn Maryam (A).

 

[thephilosopher6]

What I also said:

Acts is said to have been written by Luke, a companion of Paul. Details about the Apostolic Fathers are not 100% certain, from what I’ve seen, it’s often said that such and such Apostolic Father is ‘likely’ or ‘probably’ or ‘possibly’ connected to such and such disciple of Isa ibn Maryam (A).

There are no first century sources discrediting Paul, so your entire case is based on pure speculation that doesn’t have any support in the early Church.

In regards to the Church Fathers, even if we cannot be 100% certain they are still useful sources. It it most likely the case that they did know the apostles and were disciples of them, Irenaeus attest well to the fact that his own teacher Polycarp was a disciple of John, furthering the assertion.

We can know Paul was a reliable true Apostle because of his disinterested comment about the Apostle James in Galatians 1:19:

“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” (Galatians 1:18-19)

Notice the disinterested off the cuff remark from Paul about James. The point is if Paul was a false Apostle inventing stories we would not expect him to just mention James in passing without making a point. The fact that Paul merely mentions James in this off the cuff way persuades historians that Paul is trustworthy showing that he wasn’t out to merely prove he was an Apostle with fanciful detailed stories, but that he was actually recalling real events about his association with the early church and Apostles.

Now, as already stated in my previous post, Paul is the best source for early Christianity among scholars. He is the best source for the very existence of Jesus and his companions, and scholars do assert that the many traditions were handed down to Paul by the apostles, most notably the resurrection. Scholars believe that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is an early Christian creed, dated before Paul. Bart Ehrman dates it to 1-3 years after Jesus. The British Biblical scholar Michael Goulder states that the 1 Corinthians 15 creed “goes back at least to what Paul taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion.” Professor Ulrich Wilkins states that this material, “indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.” The scholar Walter Kasper contends that this creed was circulating by the end of A.D. 30.The notable atheist New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann states: "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion…not later than three years after the death of Jesus.”

New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce further demonstrates that Paul received this creed from the apostles themselves: "In that list two individuals are mentioned by name as having seen the risen Christ, and two only: ‘he appeared Cephas’ and ‘he appeared to James’ (1 Corinthians 15:5, 7). It is no mere coincidence that there should be the only two apostles whom Paul claims to have seen during his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion [in Gal 1:19]… It was almost certainly during these fifteen days in Jerusalem that Paul received this outline.”

New Testament scholar William Durant states: "No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John”

You have little evidence to support that Paul was a false apostle.

 

[SalamKhan]

There are no first century sources discrediting Paul, so your entire case is based on pure speculation that doesn’t have any support in the early Church.

In what world is that reasoning valid? Coming from a Catholic no less. That there was supposedly no written document from the 1st century discrediting Paul, in a largely oral world, means that no one discredited him? Time to abandon oral tradition Mr. Catholic! You say that there are no 1st century sources to discredit, but use modern sources to who use Paul to prove Paul, right…

If you’re going use a possible aspect about the personal lives of the early Fathers to prove your point, then examine all aspects of their lives. Use your head, why is it that the ancient manuscripts of Irenaeus are either in Latin or Armenian, rather than Greek, the language he actually wrote in? Because he believed in chiliasm, a belief that came to be widely rejected as heretical especially in the Greek churches.

 

[LtTony]

You’re completely ignorant of the transmission of the Qur’an, it has long been established that the transmission of the Qur’an is Mutawatir, that is terminology used in Hadith criticism where the chain of transmission contains reliable narrators so numerous to the point that it would be impossible for all of their testimonies to concur on a fabrication or interpolation. You are not an expert in the Islamic sciences, nor are the people you cite, experts in Islamic sciences. It’s not as simple as applying modern Western literary criticism. Transmission of the Qur’an in a nutshell was through controlled mass memorisation in a world where memorisation was already the norm, not to mention controlled scribal transmission; top that off with the same criticism that was applied to Hadith reports, an entire science in itself.

I wasn’t exactly talking about transmission of the book (or of previous versions, for that matter). I was talking about scholarly criticism and examination. It doesn’t happen, partly because thoswe folks are terrified they would be killed. Even Bart Erhman, when asked if he would ever scrutinize the Quran like he does the Bible, replied, “Only when I quit valuing my life.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Quran

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam

firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/09/quran-historical-criticism