Is Paul the anti-christ?

[SalomeBintullah]

I agree, and the footnotes, and study guides need to make sense, otherwise they are put to question. For instance, you say that Paul was refuting the Corinthians, yet there is nothing in the passage itself to suggest he is refuting their claim. And the commentaries well they don’t shed any light, on explaining step-by-step how paul’s comment is meant to refute.

Instead of explaining the verses, the commentary of this verse is a diatribe about good men.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
12:11-21 We owe it to good men, to stand up in the defence of their reputation; and we are under special obligations to those from whom we have received benefit, especially spiritual benefit, to own them as instruments in God’s hand of good to us. Here is an account of the apostle’s behaviour and kind intentions; in which see the character of a faithful minister of the gospel. This was his great aim and design, to do good. Here are noticed several sins commonly found among professors of religion. Falls and misdeeds are humbling to a minister; and God sometimes takes this way to humble those who might be tempted to be lifted up. These vast verses show to what excesses the false teachers had drawn aside their deluded followers. How grievous it is that such evils should be found among professors of the gospel! Yet thus it is, and has been too often, and it was so even in the days of the apostles.

The commentary below makes a blanket statement “is hereby anticipated and refuted”, it is a presumption of the commentator rather than an explanation.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
16. I did not burden you-The “I” in the Greek is emphatic. A possible insinuation of the Corinthians is hereby anticipated and refuted: “But, you may say, granted that I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you (in my net) with guile”; namely, made a gain of you by means of others (1Th 2:3).

I disagree that there’s nothing in the passage that indicates he’s refuting the claims of some of the Corinthians. He’s defending himself against some rumor, that much is clear. And the rhetorical question he uses in 2 Cor. 12:18 also support that assumption. Someone has accused him of taking advantage of the Corinthians, and he’s saying “Yeah, sure. When have I ever taken advantage of you?”

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary, which you cite above, comments on more than just the several verses we’re discussing. It also seems to be mainly concerned with making the passage relevant to the reader. And I don’t think that the commentator of the Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Bible Commentary is making an unfounded blanket statement based on an assumption. He gives very specific reasons, citing the grammar of the original Greek.

 

[jakasaki]

If you want to read about St Paul, here is an article about him and his mission.

12apostlesofthecatholicchurch.com/paul.html

 

[SalomeBintullah]

Here is Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary on the verses in question, if you want more commentary:

“Ver. 16-18. I caught you by guile. He answers an objection or suspicion of his adversaries, as if he took no presents himself, but employed others to do it for him: he appeals to them, if Titus did not serve them in all things as he had done, in the same spirit, treading the same steps. Think you, as some pretended of old, formerly, or of a long time, that we make vain and false excuses to you, and at the bottom aim to be gainers by you? He appeals with an oath to God, that he does all things for their good, for their advantage, and edification. (Witham)”

 

[cymonk]

There are many translations of the Bible. Most are decent and can be used in most cases. In this paticular case, I don’t believe the NASB is approved by the church. However, the NAB is approved and quoting from the USCCB’s web site, it reads something similar to the NASB:

"But granted that I myself did not burden you, yet I was crafty and got the better of you by deceit. "

usccb.org/nab/bible/2corinthians/2corinthians12.htm

The USCCB site also has some additional ‘help’ on the bottom to increase understanding when you read the passage in the full conext:

“10 [13-18] Paul insists on his intention to continue refusing support from the community (cf 2 Cor 11:8-12). In defending his practice and his motivation, he once more protests his love (cf 2 Cor 11:11) and rejects the suggestion of secret self-enrichment. He has recourse here again to language applied to his opponents earlier: “cunning” (2 Cor 11:3), “deceit” (2 Cor 11:13), “got the better of you” (see the note on 2 Cor 11:20), “take advantage” (2 Cor 2:11).”

I am not sure if you are just trying to cut into catholics or not. I give you credit for your pursuit. Respectfully, anyone can pull a sentence or two from a big book like the bible and mis-use it. Catholics have been dealing with that for a long time from protestants. I have personally battled with a lot of Evangelicals.

These translations are just that… translations… and are not really meant to be picked apart word for word. When you translate a sentence into another language, there is not always exact words for the ones one is using. So translators try to convey the “jist” of what was said. For this reason, you have to read things in their full context. So if you want to dig it down to one sentence, or word… you probably need to start using a bible in the original languages. And if you want to dig even deeper, you may also want to add cultural context to it since some of the words/phrases may not have meant the same thing back then (“Danny cut the cheese.” would not mean the same thing back then). These are all reasons why catholics don’t teach “scripture alone.” I am sure muslims have similar differences of opinions about translations of the Koran too.

If you are truelly looking for answers, buying bible commentary might be a good idea, though you may want to make sure it is a church approved one. It gives you more help to understand not only the sentence as written, but also the cultural contexts, etc. Hope this helps. May God Bless you.

Cymonk

 

[koranist]

In 2 Corinthians 12:16, Paul makes a perplexing, yet revealing, statement: “But be it so, I did not burden you: being crafty,** I took you in by deceit**.”

Does Christianity accept “taking in by deceit” as a means of “ministering,” and propagandizing?

The Torah, the “Law,” which Paul mocked and considered a “yoke” and “bondage,” says: “Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.” Leviticus 19:11

When i was a Sunni because I did not know any better, they used to tell us Paul was a bad guy who pre-empted Jesus and created a false religion. Now I know its Sunnis and Shias who lie. Paul did not add anything new to Jesus. Its true he never met Jesus but he met the disciples. Sunnis say these things because Paul emphasized Jesus’s crufixion and resurrection and they don’t believe in both. Sunnis and Shias do not even believe in the Koran, it plays no part on their faith but its just a reference source for some of their teachings. Now I discovered that many Christians also are not interested about the Gospel. Its a human condition and it works across all cultures and religious communities.

Paul is despised by Jews also. They despise him because he stopped persecuting the followers of Jesus and became a follower of Jesus. Paul was a Talmud firster but he abandoned that and started following God instead. He preached to the gentiles and made Christianity a universal faith. Paul was never responsible for the development of Christian doctrine, he was responsible for spreading the Gospel. In hindsight now I know how great Paul was and how God honored him by having his name next to Jesus and his disciples in the Gospel and made him among the witnesses of the truth for all to see.

I am not sure about the incident in Damascus but he is deserving of it. Paul in my mind was a great saint and a great man. He left the Pharisaic darkness and liberated himself. May he rest in peace.

 

[cymonk]

When i was a Sunni because I did not know any better, they used to tell us Paul was a bad guy who pre-empted Jesus and created a false religion. Now I know its Sunnis and Shias who lie. Paul did not add anything new to Jesus. Its true he never met Jesus but he met the disciples. Sunnis say these things because Paul emphasized Jesus’s crufixion and resurrection and they don’t believe in both. Sunnis and Shias do not even believe in the Koran, it plays no part on their faith but its just a reference source for some of their teachings. Now I discovered that many Christians also are not interested about the Gospel. Its a human condition and it works across all cultures and religious communities.

Paul is despised by Jews also. They despise him because he stopped persecuting the followers of Jesus and became a follower of Jesus. Paul was a Talmud firster but he abandoned that and started following God instead. He preached to the gentiles and made Christianity a universal faith. Paul was never responsible for the development of Christian doctrine, he was responsible for spreading the Gospel. In hindsight now I know how great Paul was and how God honored him by having his name next to Jesus and his disciples in the Gospel and made him among the witnesses of the truth for all to see.

I am not sure about the incident in Damascus but he is deserving of it. Paul in my mind was a great saint and a great man. He left the Pharisaic darkness and liberated himself. May he rest in peace.

Well Said.

 

[DorianGregorian]

You have taken this passage gravely out of context:

I assume that you will not look at a verse objectively, judging by the matter in which you asked the question, however I will approach your question from an objective point of view, I am taking a liberty by rephrasing your question in a more objective matter: “Is St. Paul promoting anti-Christian ideas in 2 Corinthians 12:16?”

2 Corinthians 12:16 (Vulgate):
“Sed esto ego vos non gravavi sed cum essem astutus dolo vos cepi?”

2 Corinthians 12:16 (Douay-Rheims, the most accurate English translation):
“But be it so: I did not burthen you: but being crafty, I caught you by guile.”

“Dolus” is the original Latin word, and while it can be translated into a multiple of words (and dolus is idiomatic in Latin as it does not have an exact translation) “guile” serves as a better translation within the context.

Guile and Deceit are similar but not exact. It is important that we use proper terminology here when discussing the bible in a scholarly matter.

My answer is clearly, without a doubt “no”. St. Paul is not promoting any anti-Christian behavior in this verse.

First we must look at the verse in it’s context, verses 16,17,18.

2 Corinthians 12:16-18 D-R:
But be it so: I did not burthen you: but being crafty, I caught you by guile. Did I overreach you by any of them whom I sent to you? I desired Titus: and I sent with him a brother. Did Titus overreach you? Did we not walk with the same spirit? Did we not in the same steps?

First let us look at a commentary on this verse, I use this commentary as this commentary uses the D-R.

“Ver. 16-18. I caught you by guile. He answers an objection or suspicion of his adversaries, as if he took no presents himself, but employed others to do it for him: he appeals to them, if Titus did not serve them in all things as he had done, in the same spirit, treading the same steps. Think you, as some pretended of old, formerly, or of a long time, that we make vain and false excuses to you, and at the bottom aim to be gainers by you? He appeals with an oath to God, that he does all things for their good, for their advantage, and edification.” (Witham) - Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary.

So clearly the phrase is not a statement, but a response to a question posed to him by the assembly. It is a rebuke, St. Paul states he is doing nothing which is not for their good, and he does it in a good Christian way. It is important to understand Scripture in it’s historical context.

Also I believe it is not in good taste to come on to a Catholic forum and accuse one of our most revered thinkers, a Saint, of being the “anti-Christ.” I would ask that in the future you would please show the same respect one would give to another. I am convinced that Christianity is the one true faith and that outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. However I am respectful towards other people, something I would suggest you improve on.

Laus Deo