Paul: the only apostle to the gentiles?

[Ben_Masada]

I’ve encountered some dispensationalists who claim that Paul is the ONLY apostle for the gentiles. In responding to them about their false claims about the Catholic Church, they deflect any scriptural evidence from the gospels by saying that they were only written for the Jews. (In fact they’ve gone so far as to say that the gospels should rightly be considered part of the Old Testament.)

This was sort of a new one on me. Anyone know how this sort of interpretation came about and how to approach it as a Catholic apologist? It seems like something that would be fairly easy to counter logically but the committment these folks have to this belief is so deep that I doubt anything (except the Holy Spirit) would get them to question it.

**Paul was not at all an apostle to the Gentiles; let alone the only one. Two percent of missionary activities among the Gentiles can hardly classify one to be an apostle to the Gentiles. 98 percent of Paul’s missionary activities were among the Jews. Since his first station in Damascus, for three years in the synagogues of the Jews, after his strategic change of mind, and until his last station in Rome, his almost only concern was to rob the Nazarenes out of their converts, and overturn entire synagogues into Christian churches. He used to act like the cuckoo bird that lay her egg in the nest of other birds so that her offspring be fed and nurtured by another bird’s mother.

The real Apostle to the Gentiles was Peter, who spread synagogues almost everywhere throughout Asia Minor and Northern Africa, escpecially Alexandria. (Acts 15:7) However, credit must be given to whom credit is due. Paul, regardless of his not so cosher method, he succeeded to found Christianity in the city of Antioch, where the disciples were first called Christians, because he had spent a whole year there preaching about Jesus as Christ. (Acts 11:26) And from there, throughout Asia Minor, wherever there was a Nazarene synagogue he would be operating…**

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Ben, this is off topic, but I wonder what your personal view might be with regard to those views that Paul converted when if “robbed the Nazarenes out of their converts”. Was he converting them to something else that was still within the panoply of God’s family or was he converting them to a simply new form of paganism?

 

[otjm]

That is a snide remark.

Tell me of all your wisdom?

No, I wouldn’t want to bore you will all my wisdom…

Yes, it probably comes across a bit snide. But there is also an element of truth in it; getting into an argument with someone who a) has not done much in the way of reading about the results of scriptural research and b) tends to be a very committed individual on their personal take is most likely to be nothing more than an exercise in frustration, at it s best.

There is ample evidence available to show somone of the persuasion the OP speaks of that they are taking to flights of fantasy. However, all the evidence in the world, including an apparation by St Paul himself would not be sufficient for the “true believer”.

The short answer, if you take offense to my prior comment, is that if one finds someone off on a similar tangent and they have the marks of the “true believer”, move on. There are more enjoyable and less frustrating ways to waste one’s time.

 

[DeusVult09]

Peter was also an apostle to the gentiles and was martyred in Rome.

Acts chapter 10

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. **10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” 16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
19While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, threea men are looking for you. 20So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”
21Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”
22The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” 23Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests. The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along. 24The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”
27Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. 29So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?” **30Cornelius answered: “Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me 31and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. 32Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ 33So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”
34Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. 36You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, this is off topic, but I wonder what your personal view might be with regard to those views that Paul converted when if “robbed the Nazarenes out of their converts”. Was he converting them to something else that was still within the panoply of God’s family or was he converting them to a simply new form of paganism?

**First of all, the thread we are discussing is about the question if Paul was the only apostle to the Gentiles. Therefore, I am not off topic.

And now, to answer your question, Paul was converting the converts of the Nazarenes into becoming Christians, which of course, does not figure within the panoply of God’s family, or whatever you mean by that. He would turn the converts of the Nazarenes back into Gentiles.

If you remember, Jesus said that Gentiles worship what they do not understand, while Jews understand what they worship. Why? Because God is Spirit, incorporeal. And to worship Him one must do it in spirit. No wonder, he continued, that salvation is of the Jews. (John 4:22-24. **

 

[Grace_Seeker]

**First of all, the thread we are discussing is about the question if Paul was the only apostle to the Gentiles. Therefore, I am not off topic. ** Ben, I didn’t mean you were off topic. My question to you was off topic. It was at best a tangent to the real topic of the thread.

 

[soflochristmas]

That is a snide remark.

Tell me of all your wisdom?

A “snide remark”? Not really…it’s biblical.

“If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them.” Luke 9:5

 

[Harpazo]

This makes some sense. But the idea that Paul was the ONLY apostle to the Gentiles is ludicrous just by reading Acts: Peter & Cornelius, Philip and the Ethopian eunch. Then later we have John writing from Patmos, and Peter’s letters which were for all the Church, not just Jewish followers of Christ. As a protestant pastor, I would suggest that if you run into someone who isn’t willing to consider the evidence that is in scripture itself then the best recourse is probably Jesus’ instruction to brush the dust from your feet and move on. These people aren’t willing to listen to anything except what they already are convinced of and you’re not going to change that no matter how strong the facts are in your favor.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Wasn’t the Ethiopian eunuch Jewish?

Also, let’s not forget about Ss. Andrew and Thomas. St. Andrew (my patron ) apparently went as far North as Russia and as far West as Scotland. I imagine that those in Russia at that time were not Jews. St. Thomas went as far as India, and I imagine they were Hindu.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Also, let’s not forget about Ss. Andrew and Thomas. St. Andrew (my patron ) apparently went as far North as Russia and as far West as Scotland. I imagine that those in Russia at that time were not Jews. St. Thomas went as far as India, and I imagine they were Hindu.

In Christ,
Andrew

That’s fine the but person the OP was talking to is not going to accept church tradition. It seems that he isn’t even paying much attention to scripture.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, I didn’t mean you were off topic. My question to you was off topic. It was at best a tangent to the real topic of the thread.

That’s all right Grace, nothing happened. So, to get back to the topic, Paul was never able to build a church from scratch; I mean with only Gentiles. He loved to build on the foundations of the Nazarenes.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

So when Jesus said at the end of the Gospels go and teach to all the nations he really meant the Jews…

No there is one Gospel for all nations…

That passage appears in the last twelve verses of Mark, which are almost certainly interpolations (it’s there that believers are told they will speak in tongues and can “drink anything poisonous, and it won’t hurt them”). Those verses don’t appear in the oldest extant copies of Mark.

A similar passage appears in Luke, but since Luke was based on Mark, that might also be an interpolation.

Either way, Jesus himself says that he was only sent for the Jews …

Matthew 15:24

But He answered and said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

and …

Matthew 10

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7And as ye go, preach, saying, `The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.’

Jesus also makes a number of derogatory remarks about gentiles. This is why some believe Paul to be the real founder of Christianity.

Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? by David Wenham

The Apostle Paul Founder of Christianity

 

[Lapell]

I’ve encountered some dispensationalists who claim that Paul is the ONLY apostle for the gentiles. In responding to them about their false claims about the Catholic Church, they deflect any scriptural evidence from the gospels by saying that they were only written for the Jews. (In fact they’ve gone so far as to say that the gospels should rightly be considered part of the Old Testament.)

This was sort of a new one on me. Anyone know how this sort of interpretation came about and how to approach it as a Catholic apologist? It seems like something that would be fairly easy to counter logically but the committment these folks have to this belief is so deep that I doubt anything (except the Holy Spirit) would get them to question it.

Sounds like the added “ONLY” might be likened to Luther’s addition of the word “allein” (alone) to Paul’s saying that the Scriptures are authoritative. The Scripture doesn’t say he was the only one, of course.
Let’s hope they won’t produce a version of the NT stating Paul was the ONLY one to preach to the Gentiles.
His letters mentioning some collaborators (Epaphras, Apollos, Silas, Barnabas, Luke, Mark, Sylvanus, etc.) certainly disprove them…