Refuting the idea that Paul corrupted Christianity

[EphelDuath]

My Jewish friend is telling me that Jesus meant for us to remain Jewish, but Paul corrupted that theology by telling us that we don’t have to follow the OT laws anymore. He supports his statement with Matthew 5:17

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

How do I refute this claim? As far as I know, it was never implied that baptism was meant to replace circumcision; it’s possible they could co-exist, it was Paul who said circumcision wasn’t neccesary.

 

[s4angel]

If you read further you will find that in fact the circumsision is of the heart.

The thought was that just because one was circumcised you went to heaven because you became one of gods people. It wasnt the physical circumcision that counted rather the circumcision of ones heart is what paul was getting at.

ok I found it.

Romans chapt 2:25
It is a good thing to be circumcised if you keep the law; but if you break the law, you might as well have stayed uncircumcised.

2:26
If a man who is not circumcised obeys the commandmants of the law, surely that makes up for not being circumcised?

2:27
More than that, the man who keeps the law, even though he has not been physically circumcised, is a living condemnation of the way you disobey the law in spite of being circumcised and having it all written down

This next chapter deals with the heart of the matter 2:29

The real Jew is the one who is inwardly a Jew and the real circumcision is in the heart–something not of the letter but of the spirit. A jew like that may not be praised by man, but he will be praised by God.

basicaly earlier in chapter two he realy states what he means 2:13

It is not listening to the law but keeping it that will make people holy in the sight of God.

If one listens to the law and has a physical circumcision but breaks the law what good is circumcision? The answer for Jew and christian alike is quite frankly the keeping of the Law. Having it inside you guide you.

I don’t understand the question of Paul supposedly countermanding the Law, in Chapter 3 where he goes on to say that there is a great advantage in every way to being a jew or being circumcised and how gods fidelity is not canceled because a few of them were unfaithful. It is not what is outward but inward that will be judged.

I hope this helps you… Paul was quite a person somewhat like me. I only see two responses to Paul on is basically misquoting and infering meaning where none was meant. Paul is black and white with him there are not shades of gray and rarely do I read his words or hear him that I don’t feel convicted in some way.

 

[s4angel]

As for fulfilling the law

The sacrafice was made. No more is needed Gods very own Son his body was sacrificed for us.

The holy commandments or Laws we still live by but did Jesus not say to love on another as you love yourself???
would you want to lie to your loved one?
murder them?
steal from them?
be jealouse of them?
steal their wives/husband?
etc???
No the fulfillment of the law is inside you written with the love on our hearts. Gods love His sacrifice his fidelity to us. Once those are written on our hearts it fulfils that law not just reading it or knowing it but being it.
None of us can be worthy in the eyes of God except when inscribed on our hearts is the blood and sacrifice of god. Thats the fullfillment of the law.
My family is third generation catholics before that my family was Jewish. the only person in my family who is not circumcised is my son. We still pretty much follow the Kosher diet, more out of habit than religion and because for some reason there are just some things I cant or can not bring myself to eat. the point is it is not what I eat or if my son is circumcised or if I follow the Laws handed to my forefathers rather it is what is in me that will be judged. nothing but that will matter in the end.

 

[Todd_Easton]

If Paul was preaching a corrupted gospel, his preaching would have been condemned by the apostles of Jesus Christ and the elders at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and he would not have received “the right hand of fellowship” from the pillars of the Church. (Galatians 2:1-10)

 

[EphelDuath]

If Paul was preaching a corrupted gospel, his preaching would have been condemned by the apostles of Jesus Christ and the elders at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and he would not have received “the right hand of fellowship” from the pillars of the Church. (Galatians 2:1-10)

Obviously, the argument includes that the Church is not infallible, and that Paul’s teachings would’ve corrupted them as well.

 

[s4angel]

ok there is more than one question here.

Let us start in Genesis and the convenant made with Abram renamed by God Abraham.

In Genesis chapter 17:12You shall circumcise your foreskin and this shall be the sign of the Covenant between myself and you.

Notice he said SIGN not garantee. No where did Paul say not to do it just that it did not garantee salvation. In fact Paul did say there was every advantage for a Jew to be circumcised which in no way violates the convenant between God and Abraham but instead gives it its true meaning. Circumcision does not garantee salvation but is the physical sign of the convenant God made with his chosen people. Gentiles are adopted and grafted on the tree while the original tree is with the Jews.

In Mathew 5:17
"Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them.

Jesus Christ said these words. Paul in no way said not to circumcise or follow the law what he did instead was clarify the point that a physical circumcision did not garantee salvation. But rather the circumcision of ones heart. For a Jewish person to be circumcised is of great advantage but the circumcision is not complete unless ones heart is circumcised and that can only be done by keeping the law. Not just reading it and following the physical operation of the convenant but completing the internal convenant as well.

Mathew 5:20

For I tell you, if your virtue goes no deeper than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.

The ball is back in your court. Just how did Paul Corrupt Christianity???

 

[Nita]

My Jewish friend is telling me that Jesus meant for us to remain Jewish, but Paul corrupted that theology by telling us that we don’t have to follow the OT laws anymore. He supports his statement with Matthew 5:17

How do I refute this claim? As far as I know, it was never implied that baptism was meant to replace circumcision; it’s possible they could co-exist, it was Paul who said circumcision wasn’t neccesary.

I think a couple of Jesus’ parables show that He was foretelling a Church separate from the Jews.

*Matthew 9:16 And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. 9:17 Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved."

*Matthew 21:33-45 (Parable of the wicked tenants)
(21:43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it." 21:45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them.)

These passages show a new church would be established, but they don’t necessarily address whether the OT laws ritual laws would be set aside. So, not sure if they’ll help or not.

What is certain is that at the Last Supper Jesus established a new covenant - with a new memorial sacrifice and with a new priesthood (non Levitical, foretold by Isaiah 66:21) to offer the sacrifice. All of this necessarily means a change in at least some of the ritual laws.

Nita

 

[s4angel]

I could go on and on but instead let me share this with you. If you read further into Romans Chapter 3:9- 20 he deals directly with and quoting the law for the pupose of laying it all open for the world that no one can be justified in the sight of God by just keeping the law All the law tells us is what is sinfull.

So the question remains why is paul stating this and for what purpose??? As I have demonstrated before in no way did he say not to be circumcised all he said was it would not save you by just keeping that law what would save you would be something inside of you. The law was made for us to know what sin was and with law comes the promise of punishment for breaking the law.

If you read further you will discover more of what paul was getting at. in Romans 3:21-26 he reveals that that both Jew and pagan forfieted Gods glory through sin but both would be justified through the free gift of his grace by being redeemed by Jesus Christ. in chapter 3:30
Since there is only one God, and he is the one who will justify the circumcised because of their faith (not just keeping the law physically but internaly Faith) and justify the uncircumcised through their faith. Do we mean that faith makes the law pointless? Not at all: we are giving the law its true value.

My point is nowhere did I ever see where Paul told anyone not to follow the law just that keeping the law would not save them it was only by faith Abraham was found justified by faith before the circumcision the circumcision was a sign of a convenant. But it was faith that justified him.

If you read further into Romans chapter 7 it says we are freed from the law. by that the punishment that comes with the law that did not subdue us because it was not written on our hearts with faith. Once under grace we can be forgiven. Read the old testament and the punishment that was imposed for breaking the commandmants. DEATH. Jesus Christ overcame death made the ultimate sacrifice for us so we would not be put to death but instead live through grace. We can not justify ourselves by keeping the law but by living in grace.

On well known verse jumps to mind and it is one I am sure you have heard.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that we may have everlasting light. forgive me if I did not get it exactly right.

God loved the world not just the Jews but the world us, the greeks and the pagans alike he loved us so he did not want to lose us to death because we could not be justified by the law so he gave us grace.

Paul never said anything in contrary to the scripture you first posted in mathew rather he was explaining it. Jesus did fulfill the law he did not abolish it but fulfilled it so we could live in grace through him the altimate sacrifice that the law required.

 

[Nita]

My Jewish friend is telling me that Jesus meant for us to remain Jewish, but Paul corrupted that theology by telling us that we don’t have to follow the OT laws anymore. He supports his statement with Matthew 5:17

How do I refute this claim? As far as I know, it was never implied that baptism was meant to replace circumcision; it’s possible they could co-exist, it was Paul who said circumcision wasn’t neccesary.

Paul wasn’t the first to declare that circumcision wasn’t necessary. You might say it was God, when He directed Peter, through a vision, to go to the uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius. When Peter arrived at the centurion’s house, God poured out the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius, after which Peter baptized him. (Acts 10) Later, at the council in Jerusalem, when the question arose concerning whether or not circumcision was necessary, Peter addresses the council and tells them that God has already shown, through him (Peter), that there is no need for circumcision. (Acts 15)

*Acts15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 15:8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 15:10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? *

Nita