I wont link to them here, but there are extreme Messianics who call themselves Ebionites, and I’ve noticed some of their web sites attacking the Apostle Paul for circumstances beyond his control.
Common examples would be his being born with the name of Israel’s first, apostate King.
His being of the same tribe.
And his being baptized in the house of a “Judas.”
I don’t know whether or not Paul ever experienced such attacks in his lifetime, but these modern attackers seem to infer that all these coincidences are signs that Paul is not a true Apostle of God.
My question is whether this kind of thinking is a necessary corolary of a premis given by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Suma Theologica.
St. Thomas would never say that Saul of Tarsus was an apostate because he was given the same name as the infamous King Saul, that he is not to be trusted because he was of the same tribe, or that he betrayed his master because he was baptized in the house of a “Judas” who lived in Antioch, but don’t such conclussions follow naturally from the premise that “what happens here by accident, both in natural things and in human affairs, is reduced to a preordaining cause, which is Divine Providence”?
Their point is true about Paul being named Saul and that not being a mistake, or a coincidence IMO. The problem as I see it is they fail to see the point of his name being changed to Paul. Most messianics (that I’ve come in contact with) are Hebrew only, or Hebrew primacy at least. And so they call him Ravi Shaul, and continue to call him by the old man. The irony of it is that they are living by the old man with trying to attain perfection through the law. Yes they state thats not the case but IMO that is the final outcome of it.
They don’t like Paul because he said they should castrate themselves. And their only ground to stand on is to discredit Paul, then their Tanakh + Jesus theology can stand sort of. But even then you’d have to lose a majority of the gospels to fit into their very OT views. Which is what I think ebionites do is believe Jesus was just a teacher of the law, he didn’t come to change anything, he was just another dude, a righteous dude, but a dude.
But you would take his being baptized in the house of a dude named Judas to be a coincedence, wouldn’t you?
So if Aquinas was right when he said “what happens here by accident, both in natural things and in human affairs, is reduced to a preordaining cause, which is Divine Providence,” why would a coincedence like this exist?
God is surely not telling us to disregard two thirds of the New Testament, is He?
He isn’t telling us that Paul isn’t an Apostle, is He?
He isn’t trying to help these Ebionites deceive people, is He?
As a more recent example of this kind of coincedence:
At one point during the Republican Primary, liberal bloggers who disagree with his politics (and who probably have little use for any religious ideology) were falling over each other pointing out that Mitt Romney had 666 estimated delegates.
Was God telling evangelical Christian voters to vote for Barrack Obama?
I don’t think so, but if God is really Sovereign and timeless, and "We must therefore say that what happens here by accident, both in natural things and in human affairs, is reduced to a preordaining cause, which is Divine Providence" (as Saint Thomas says), why are there coincedences like this?
I have some thoughts (and Cindy Skillman had some interesting things to say on another thread), but I’m interested in more thoughts on this.
Michael, historically, the so-called Ebionites were not the only ones discrediting Saul called Paul of Tarsus. For starters, “Ebionite” is not a name/label these groups called themselves, it was a kind of derogatory label, assigned to various groups of early Christians by early Roman Catholic apologists, who were in disagreement with the ministry and teachings of Paul.
At issue here is that major elements of Paul’s ministry were without question drawn almost verbatim from ancient Mithraism, a pagan mystery religion that was popular in Antioch, a mere stone’s throw from Paul’s home town of Tarsus.
Looking at the issue with Saul’s name, his tribe, etc, many first century Christians understood this to mean Saul called Paul was bad news. Even within the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus himself draws attention to the false leader saying, “Beware of the false prophets [leaders/teachers], who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” Mat. 7:15
Most modern readers of the Bible fail to see the heavy Judaic nuance in Jesus’ own words here, mostly because we are unfamiliar with Hebraic culture. However the phrase “ravenous wolf” is something every period Jew would have been aware of. The enemy of truth would indeed be a murderous Benjamite. (Note that Benjamin, the son of Jacob had been “blessed” as a ravenous wolf. Benjamites throughout the Tanakh were often bad news, being violent and uncivil.)
These things are difficult, if not wholly impossible to ignore. You seem to want to give Paul a pass for things that were beyond his control. Are you attempting to make excuses for how Jesus’ own prophecy foretold the coming of a bad leader?
There are other problems with Paul also. King Saul had been plagued by an evil spirit sent by the hand of GOD; likewise, Paul himself had been plagued by an evil spirit sent by the hand of GOD also. Just coincidence? Far too many things are adding up here to become just mere coincidence of events beyond Paul’s control.
“There is little notice of the Persian god [Mithra] in the Roman world until the beginning of the 2nd century, but, from the year AD 136 onward, there are hundreds of dedicatory inscriptions to Mithra. This renewal of interest is not easily explained. The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Roman Mithraism was practically a new creation, wrought by a religious genius who may have lived as late as c. AD 100 and who gave the old traditional Persian ceremonies a new Platonic interpretation that enabled Mithraism to become acceptable to the Roman world”
If any borrowing took place, it would seem likely that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity.
“Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: “hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus” (“we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us”). It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochtonos and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river.”
I was speaking of modern “Ebionites” (on the internet, who do call themselves by that name, and who make an issue of Saul’s name and tribe today)–is there any evidence earlier Judaizers had the same issues?
O’kay.
Here is someone who believes that all these “coincidences” were arranged by Providence to mark Paul as one of the bad guys
To accept that, we must reject at least two thirds of the New Testament (including most of the passages cited by Christian Universalists, like Col. 1:20, Eph. 1:10, etc., etc.)
Beau has no Bible, and he must believe that there was no Christian Church or organized clergy for centuries.
But if there is such a thing as a preordaining Providence, why do the coincidences that led Beau to his conclusions about St. Paul exist?
That’s what I’m really interested in here (and we can start another thread to debate the problems with modern Ebionite Theology if Beau or anyone else wants.)
To those who believe Paul was an Apostle inspired by God, I would ask what I asked in the OP.
If Aquinas was right when he said “what happens here by accident, both in natural things and in human affairs, is reduced to a preordaining cause, which is Divine Providence,” why would the coincidences Beau points to exist?
And does this make any sense to anyone?
**
A complex but knowable Universe will involve many identifiable coincidences due to natural statistical distributions of multiple component systems with finite property-ranges. Most of these coincidences will not be intended by God for their own sake as coincidences or signs, but simply as separate facts that can nevertheless be subjectively associated due to property overlaps. The mere fact that God is aware of the property overlaps, but only chooses each property for other reasons not related to the overlap between them, is sufficient to make the coincidence fundamentally meaningless. Being omniscient, he is obviously aware of the identifiable overlaps, but this is not the same as willing them for their own sake. So, God intends the coincidences per accidens, but not per se.**
Thanks for the info concerning Mithra and Paul. I only recently learned of certain doubts concerning Paul, through this video, and have been wanting added details. m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=9npnLdwd … npnLdwdjUU. I find it interesting that this man can see the distinctiveness of Paul and his ministry so easily. Maybe you can provide some insight on this video, concerning appolineus (whatever the spelling)
Only extreme messianic Jews (who would be viewed as heretics not only by traditional Christians, but by most other messianic Jews) have questions about the Apostle Paul.
He did, after all, write two thirds of The New Testament.
What I was looking for here were thoughts on why God would provide anyone who wanted to question Paul’s ministry with these negative associations (if there are no such things as coincidences, as some say.)
Appolineus sounds familiar, where did you find the name (and in what context)?
Did I use it somewhere (and if so, did I supply a quote, or link)?
There was an early Church Father who seemed to view Peter as an Apostle to Jews only, and Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles, and his name may have been Appolineus (could that be the “Appolineus” you’re referring to?)
(I apologize for not listening to your video, but the link leads to a page of video links, the first one doesn’t work, I don’t really know which one you mean, and I don’t have much interest in these videos.)
No problem. This person I refered to is believed by some to be the real Apostle Paul, due to a number of seeming coincidences. I thought this alone may fascinate you. However I realize I made an error, by confusing what you earlier said about Mithra, and what I had watched on this video.
And their only ground to stand on is to discredit Paul, then their Tanakh + Jesus theology can stand sort of. But even then you’d have to lose a majority of the gospels to fit into their very OT views. Which is what I think ebionites do is believe Jesus was just a teacher of the law, he didn’t come to change anything, he was just another dude, a righteous dude, but a dude.