The 12 Apostles Rejected Paul, part 3

This is part 3 of a response to the "Jesus' Words Only" web site. It assumes you have read part 1, at least far enough to know that the claims of the web site are, and why this response is being made.

A battery of Rodman cannons overlooking the Potomac at Fort Washington, Maryland.

We have come halfway and it is time to make an assessment. If you go to the cinema, you need to stay to the end if you're going to tell a friend whether it's good or not, but usually by the midway point you know whether the story and directing and acting is good.

Doug's movie is not worth staying for the end. It is disjointed and confusing and preachy. He wants a million people in his audience but he doesn't care about them enough to tell them the truth: he only wants them to agree. I would like to walk out. There are better things to do with my life. But, this is a review so I'll stay.

Doug looks out over Scripture as featureless, mundane terrain. He doesn't set out to discover the beauty or wonder of it, he doesn't dig down to learn what it's made of and explore its many layers. He picks up a rock and talks about its heft, but doesn't break it open to be amazed at the dazzling pink crystal inside. He finds a leaf and explains the vein structure, but doesn't find the tree to lay his face on the bark and feel its strength and rugged beauty. He peers at a hill in the distance and estimates how high it is, but doesn't get close enough to see that nuggets of gold hint at a mother-load deep inside. He brings in experts to explain why fields of wheat are not wheat. He jams a stick into the ground and calls it a tree; he tramples down some grass and declares it a desert. He calls people away from the monumental beauty to sit before him as he drums on the same points until he is satisfied everyone is convinced.

The limit of the truth for you is the limit of the truth for him, which is the limit of his understanding. Ignorance is his defense, his offense, his point of view. He says: You have proof? So what, I have doubts. I win.

We go on.

19. Around 68 AD (some say 97 AD) the Apostle John wrote Revelation. In Rev. 2 Jesus condemned as a false apostle one who told the Ephesians he was one of the apostles but was not. This fits Paul, as Matthias replaced Judas in Acts 1. There was no room for a 13th apostle, as Jesus said 2x that there would only be Twelve into eternity. This was repeated by Jesus after Paul’s death in Rev. 21.

“Around 68 AD (some say 97 AD) the Apostle John wrote Revelation.” In fact, almost everyone says 97 or thereabouts. The one who says 68 is Renan, who makes the date early so he can prove other points in his argument. Renan was a self-professed disbeliever, considered Jesus to be human-only, and thought Christianity a myth. To use him as a source is unbelievably bad.

The charge is that “Jesus condemned as a false apostle one who told the Ephesians he was one of the apostles but was not”. Doug says this fits Paul. The problem is, this fits Paul only if he is still alive, or recently dead, so he is still in the consciousness of the church. It makes no sense that Christ would condemn someone as a false apostle who has been dead for 30 years and whose influence is no longer a threat. Doug must have Paul as the target, so he follows Renan’s dating of Revelation, which is manifestly self-serving (both of Renan and Doug), to make Paul alive when John wrote Revelation.

The accusation is that Paul lusted after that 13th position. Nowhere does Paul say that, and he says plainly that he wants nothing to do with the Twelve, but Doug disregards that and declares Paul sought the title, because it is necessary that Paul fit the profile, regardless of the acts.

Saying that Jesus repeated 2x that there would only be Twelve into eternity can do nothing to make Paul want a position that he never wanted. Jesus could say it 20x, or 200x, and it still could not apply to Paul if Paul never wanted it, and went to great distances (literally) to get far away from them.

It is true that Rev 21 says there will be twelve foundations with the names of the twelve apostles. The text does not say who the twelve are, and it is a bit presumptuous (and useless) to list them. Even if it is a gesture of honor to the apostles, it is God’s gesture of honor, for his own reasons, and it is unwise for us to tell him who they are.

Rev 21 also says that on the gates are the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Why twelve? There are thirteen. Does Levi lose out because his tribe was granted no defined territory? If so, why? And if it is gesture of honor to the twelve sons of Jacob, we cannot forget that the bulk of those twelve were complicit in the sale of their brother into slavery in Egypt, and they never truly repented of that (Gen 50.16-17), putting words into the mouth of their dead father instead.

Since Doug is so keen on condemning people who break the law of Moses (granted, the law of Moses was not given yet, but let’s assume sin is sin even if it is not inscribed in stone yet, because it is after all the law of God, not the law of Moses), it should be remembered that:

Gen 34 Simeon and Levi slaughtered the people of Shechem

Gen 34 The sons of Jacob plundered Shechem. They took their flocks and herds, donkeys, and whatever was in the city and in the field, all their wealth, their children and wives, and all that was in their houses. (Except, Joseph was probably too young to have been involved, and Benjamin was not yet born.)

Gen 35 Jacob assumed that his sons were idolaters

Gen 37 The brothers hated Joseph

Gen 37 The brothers attacked Joseph, threw him into a pit, then sold him into slavery

Gen 37 They lied to their father and put him through the anguish of a child's death

Gen 38 Judah married a Canaanite woman

Gen 38 Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked and the Lord put him to death

Gen 38 Onan, Judah’s second-born, offended the Lord and also was put to death

Gen 38 Judah refused to give this third son in marriage to Tamar, to raise up offspring Er

Gen 38 Judah had sex with his daughter-in-law, thinking she was a prostitute

If the twelve gates are named after the twelve tribes, what do we do about Levi and Joseph, who were sons of Jacob but had no land in their names? And what are we to make of sons who were idolaters, slaughtered the people of Shechem, and then plundered the city and captured the women and children and made them their prey? And the ones who hated Joseph and sold him into slavery?

Why should they be given any honor? Except for Joseph and Benjamin, they were idolaters, murderers, and liars. Ten of those tribes don’t even exists at the time of the writing of Revelation, and the other two have hated and killed their Messiah—and many of his followers. There is no reason the Twelve sons of Jacob should be given anything. But, God said their names are to be on the gates, so that’s it: we have nothing to say about it. Plus, 12 isn’t enough. We need to account for Levi. There should be 13 gates.

Now Doug wants to make a big deal of the names on the twelve foundations. What if the apostles are no more worthy of the honor than the twelve sons of Jacob were? What if they were not deserving at all?

Speculating who will be the replacement for Judas is silly, and presumptuous, and dangerous. Jesus said the Father gave him the Twelve. Maybe God doesn’t want us poking our noses in places we have not been invited. Maybe God doesn’t appreciate his decisions being graded according to we think is most esteemed. Maybe God, just to show he is God, will keep Judas’ name there. If he can write on the gates the names of idolaters and murderers, why not Judas? If he can write on the gates the names of those who sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver, maybe he can also write the name of Judas, who sold Jesus for thirty pieces of silver.

Who is the more culpable: Judas, one of the Twelve, or the Twelve tribes? Why honor anyone?

None of them deserve anything. That's the point. No one deserves anything!

None of it makes any sense. That’s why we should stay very far away.

Regarding the choice of Matthias:

A thirteenth apostle was not going to make any difference. Thirteen or 30 or 3000, they were all cut from the same cloth. The eleven formulating the rules for the replacement shows they had no hint of a replacement like Paul.

Acts 1

21 One of the men who accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.” 23 They proposed Joseph called Barsabbas, and Matthias. 26 The lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

Their version of a replacement was someone like them—physically involved with Christ—and their selection of him was devoid of even the most scant spiritual insight: the lot. They reached back a thousand years to dredge up an incontrovertible way of figuring out what God wants: the lot. Was their familiarity with the lot so thoughtless that it never occurred to them that the final profanity of the Roman soldiers was to cast lots for the robe of their friend?

Did Christ choose any of them by lot? Could anything have been less personal? Human? Thoughtful? How would a girl react if she were chosen from a group to be the bride by casting the lot. Could anything be more offensive?

Was their regard for their office so impoverished that they considered a replacement chosen by lot to be good enough? (Wow! Glad that’s over!) They were at the tomb of Lazarus when Jesus showed them how to pray. Could anything have been further away from everything they had seen in Christ? They closed their eyes to all they knew in Christ and reached way back into their ancient Jewishness for the definitive answer for this unknowable thing.

It was nonsense. The choice of Matthias was made wholly out of ignorance and superstition, an attempt to continue a lifestyle that Jesus said had ended, and scraping the bottom of the spiritual barrel by saying that in the age of the Spirit, the better method is to cast the lot.

Absurd.

There was no 13th position. Matthias wasn’t it, and Paul never said he wanted it. For Doug to invest so greatly in a controversy that is important to no one except the conspiracy theorists shows his lack of understanding of the true importance of what God was doing with the apostles, including Paul. Doug is heads down, examining one spent bullet, and misses the entire war.

Rev 21

10 In the spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It has the glory of God and a radiance like a very rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It has a great, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites; 13 on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Rev 2 (to the church in Ephesus)

2 “I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance. I know that you cannot tolerate evildoers; you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false. 3 I also know that you are enduring patiently and bearing up for the sake of my name, and that you have not grown weary. 4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. 5 Remember then from what you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. 6 Yet this is to your credit: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Not convincing. The evildoers and false apostles that Jesus talks about could be anyone. Making it specific to Paul is a transparent overreach, designed solely to prove your argument.

In Acts 20 is the account of Paul saying goodbye to the elders of the church in Ephesus:

17 From Miletus he sent a message to Ephesus, asking the elders of the church to meet him. 18 When they came to him, he said to them:

“You yourselves know how I lived among you the entire time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears, enduring the trials that came to me through the plots of the Jews. 20 I did not shrink from doing anything helpful, proclaiming the message to you and teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21 as I testified to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus. 22 And now, as a captive to the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and persecutions are waiting for me. 24 But I do not count my life of any value to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the good news of God’s grace.

25 “And now I know that none of you, among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom, will ever see my face again. 26 Therefore I declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. 28 Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God[d] that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. 29 I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to warn everyone with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the message of his grace, a message that is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all who are sanctified. 33 I coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothing. 34 You know for yourselves that I worked with my own hands to support myself and my companions. 35 In all this I have given you an example that by such work we must support the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, for he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

36 When he had finished speaking, he knelt down with them all and prayed. 37 There was much weeping among them all; they embraced Paul and kissed him, 38 grieving especially because of what he had said, that they would not see him again

An enemy of Paul would say that Luke is on his side and they fabricated this account to protect Paul from the accusation of sneaking into the church, the strategy being that if Paul says it first, it cannot be true of him.

But, Renan can make Rev 2 point to Paul only if he shifts the date back by 25 years, and that makes him the fraud, not Paul. The book of Acts was out there. If it wasn’t true, the elders at Ephesus would have scream that they had been set up. They would not have waited for some cryptic message in John’s writing: they would have spoken out loudly themselves.

Why are we to believe Doug’s account when there is no denial from the elders of Ephesus of what Luke said about them? Why are we to believe Doug when he must resort to the claims of a non­believer to find a date for Revelation that can support his accusation?

Jesus didn’t say he was talking about Paul: Doug did. The church at Ephesus would have denied the account in Acts 20 if it was an invention of Luke. Acts 20.21 says that Paul preached “to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus.” This sounds nothing like Jesus’ characterization of the problem in Rev 2: “You have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false.” What is false in Paul’s message?

It makes no sense. If Jesus was praising the church in Ephesus for testing Paul’s claims and finding them to be false, and all the while there was this long letter from Luke laying there, for anyone to read, where Paul makes the outrageous claim that “some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them,” how would they not rush to the other churches to complain about this ridiculous thing that Paul and Luke concocted, which made them participants in the lie, and expected them to never find out?

Not persuasive.

There is more.

In Eph 4 Paul writes this:

17 Now this I affirm and insist on in the Lord: you must no longer live as the Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. 19 They have lost all sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 That is not the way you learned Christ! 21 For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus. 22 You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

And in chapter 5, this:

Be imitators of God, as beloved children, 2 and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

3 But fornication and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Entirely out of place is obscene, silly, and vulgar talk. 5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on the disobedient. 7 Do not be associated with them. 8 Live as children of light. 10 Find out what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly.

It is against all logic that Paul could write a letter to the very people who were praised by Christ for testing him and finding him to be false, denouncing the very things he was accused of, and not be loudly denounced—not just as a false prophet, but the most shameless hypocrite ever. Where is the outrage from Ephesus? If Paul did this to them, why keep it a secret? Why use cryptic language when they know who it is? Why not shout it from the rooftops?

The letter to the Ephesians could never have gained traction in the church if it was nothing but a red herring: Paul setting down the accusation first, so he has deniability when the charge (that he knows is coming) is laid at his feet.

Impossible.

But, if we’re wanting to root out false apostles, why not take a peek at James? He wasn’t in the Twelve, yet somehow became their leader. If we want to find someone who squeezed in where he wasn’t invited, James is a much more obvious suspect than Paul.

As Ezra Palmer Gould, a Christian professor, explained in The Biblical Theology of the New Testament:

“The Apocalypse i.e., Revelation of Jesus by John ... represents an unqualified opposition to Paul....The Apocalypse is anti-Pauline.” Page 125. “Revelation is a writing distinctly anti-Pauline.” Page 131.

Note that Gould asserts without proof that an anti-Paulinist tampered with this book. Yet, this means he concedes a canonical book with Jesus’ words often present is anti-Paul.

“A Christian professor”. Wow. What more could someone ask for in a source? Doug doesn’t care that Renan is a self-professed nonbeliever, but now makes a point of labeling Ezra Palmer Gould “a Christian professor”. This is apparently to calm our concerns: now we are dealing with a credible source.

Doug doesn’t even bother to do a Wikipedia lookup to tell us who Ezra Palmer Gould is. He should have. Here it is:

Ezra Palmer Gould (d 1900) was a Baptist and later, Episcopal, minister. He graduated Harvard University in 1861 entered the ministry in 1868. His commentary on the Gospel of Mark continued to be reprinted in the International Critical Commentary series.

The key phrase in this is “Harvard”. Gould is a brilliant writer; an enjoyable read. But he is Harvard, thorough and through. Why Doug would want him as a source is a mystery. Gould does nothing to support Doug’s case.

The many ellipses in Doug’s quote from Gould are a warning that something Doug doesn’t want us to see is being left out. This is what Gould actually says (Doug’s slices are underlined; his additions are in square quotes):

Page 125

Of the writings belonging to the later apostolic teaching, the Synoptics, Peter, and James represent a qualified opposition to Paul, accepting his universalism and his doctrine of freedom from Mosaism, but rejecting his statement of freedom from law as such. The Apocalypse [i.e., Revelation of Jesus by John], however, represents an unqualified opposition to Paul, which does not exist among the apostles themselves, but only among the extreme members of their party. It is not only extreme in its positions, but violent in its language, and its Jewish Messianism is of the most pronounced type. But John, to whom it has been attributed, was not even a leader in the party of the circumcision, much less in the extreme section of that party, and the idea that it proceeds from the circle of the Twelve is therefore quite improbable. [The Apocalypse is anti-Pauline.]

Doug’s “quote” includes 8 words that exist in the source on page 125. Ten words don’t exist in the source, inserted by Doug with no note that they are his. More importantly, the portion being quoted says the opposite of what Doug argues: (1) the letter was not written by John, (2) it represents an opinion which did not exist among the apostles themselves, (3) John, even if he were the author, was not a leader in the party, and (4) it is improbable that the letter was written by anyone else of the Twelve.

Doug, wanting to prove that Revelation is anti-Pauline, appeals to a man who doesn’t even believe Revelation is genuine, and that none of the apostles would ever have said such a thing. Yes, Gould does say Revelation is anti-Pauline, but that is only because Revelation is anti-everything.

Page 126

In addition, the Apocalypse and the other Johannean writings stand at opposite poles of the New Testament teaching. Everything about the person and work of our Lord is spiritualised in the one, and externalised in the other. The Apocalypse itself, as a literary form, is at the lowest grade of Hebrew literature. It emerges, it is true, sometimes into a certain grandeur of statement, but it would not do to turn its word-paintings into pictures. The peculiarly reflective and philosophical style of the fourth Gospel belongs to an entirely different order of mind. One feels, in reading this book, the departure from the spirit and thought of Jesus more than in any other New Testament writing. And the supposition that it was written by one of the three who belonged to the inner circle of the disciples seems difficult to harmonise with both Jesus' influence over men and his knowledge of them.

Gould’s estimate of Revelation is that it is “the lowest grade of Hebrew literature”. He says the book departs “from the spirit and thought of Jesus more than in any other New Testament writing”. And Doug quotes him. Astonishing.

From page 131. Again, the part quoted by Doug is underlined:

This part assigned to him in creation and the title, "Word of God," are probable indications of Alexandrianism, as the doctrine of the place of his death in redemption is Pauline. But they occur in a writing distinctly anti-Pauline and alien to Alexandrianism, and are therefore indications of composite authorship.

Remarkable. Doug lifts four words (“a” is counted as a word: let’s not be picky) (and adds two of his own without notice) and calls it a quote. (Notice the quotes)

Four words. Four words from an explanation of Gould on why Revelation is not genuine. Gould is not saying the book is anti-Pauline to discredit Paul; he’s saying it to discredit Revelation!

Then Doug says, “Note that Gould asserts without proof that an anti-Paulinist tampered with this book”. Tampering with the book is not the issue. Proof is not the issue. Gould is writing a book on NT Theology to explain his views on the NT. Nothing in the book has “proof”. What proof is Doug wanting: a note from AD 68 saying “I tampered with the book”?

But Gould doesn’t say that. Gould’s phrase is “composite authorship”, which means there are such widely-disparate doctrine in the book that they could not have come from a single author. He is saying the book is internally contradictory. He is saying that one finds doctrines from Alexandrianism and doctrines alien to Alexandrianism in the same work. “Tampering” is a rather loose synonym for “composite authorship”. Nevertheless, it’s beside the point. If Doug understood Gould’s focus on Alexandrianism he would not be too concerned that the book was tampered with.

Absolutely mind-boggling. Gould asserts that the book of Revelation is not by John, that it could not have been penned by anyone associated with Christ, and that it was written by extremist Messianic Jews to promote their idea of a slaughtering Messiah.

Why would Doug even mention Gould’s name? He should have stayed far away. Did he not read the pages 125 and 131? Gould says everything Doug doesn’t want anyone to hear.

And Doug caps it off by saying “Yet, this means he concedes a canonical book with Jesus’ words often present is anti-Paul.”

Gould doesn’t say the book is canonical. Gould never mentions the canonicity of any book in the NT. He’s from Harvard. Gould says there is nothing of the genuine Christ in Revelation. And in saying the book is “anti-Paul”, he is expressing his misgivings about Revelation, not Paul.

20. Jesus in the same passage of Rev. 2:14 condemned the person teaching it is ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Paul did so, only restricting it when someone was around who thought it was wrong to do so. Hence, Jesus in Rev 2:1-14 twice condemned Paul’s authority and teachings in just 14 verses.

Wrong. Paul never said it was ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols. He told the Corinthians to not do it.

In 1 Cor 8, arguing against those who said it was ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols, Paul told them they were sinning to do so, and said he would never eat meat if it might cause someone to fall. Paul was not saying it was ok so long as no one was watching. He was saying that this so-called liberty is a much more serious matter than just meat:

10 For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? 11 So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed. 12 But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall.

Paul appeals to them on the basis of love. They regard liberty as having the highest value. Paul says no: love is more important than liberty, and he would give up all his liberty if it meant keeping another person safe. Two chapters later, returning to the subject, Paul says clearly: don’t do this!

1 Cor 10

25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you. 28 But if someone says, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it.

Paul is saying only that you can live a normal life: you don’t have to follow Jewish rules. The Jews would not buy meat at the market: one because it was a Gentile market, and two because the Jews had rules on how animals were to be killed. Paul said you don’t have to observe Jewish scruples on meat. Buy from normal places (a Jew wouldn’t do this), and eat at the house of anyone you want (a Jew wouldn’t do this). But that is not the same thing as saying it was ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Paul never said that.

Paul said to not worry. A Jew would worry. A Jew would say any meat is defiled, just by being in a Gentile market. A Jew would say that because Gentiles worship idols, there is a chance the meat came from a Gentile temple. Paul said the meat means nothing. Eat… unless you know where it came from, then don’t, not because the meat is defiled, but because once you know, then you take a stand: either as someone who says idol worship is ok, or as someone who says it’s wrong.

Being sneaky about it is not the point. You live in the world, so live. Don’t worry about things the Jews worry about. But: once you see you’re standing in muck, get quickly to a clean place. You will get dirty, but you must not join it. The Jew’s scruples meant they would have nothing to do with the rest of the world. Paul refuses to allow that, but there is a falling off point, and the worship of demons is far past that horizon.

Earlier in the chapter he used the OT as a warning to not sin as they had:

7 Do not become idolaters as some of them did; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play.” 8 We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents. 10 And do not complain as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.

Accusing Paul of the sin of Korah when he expressly warned the Corinthians to not copy the sins of Israel in the wilderness is really, really bad.

Later in ch 10 Paul tells them flatly: you cannot do this! And not because a stone idol is anything, but because that stone idol is part of demon worship:

14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 18 Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

To say that Paul allowed eating meat sacrificed to idols is a completely backwards read of what he said. He never said such a thing. To say he did only shows that you read what you want to read, because your hostility has blinded you. You’re wrong. It’s not there! He never said it.

These words cannot be ignored, as they were written by a true apostle among the twelve.

Just because John is an apostle does not mean Paul isn’t. And including James and Jude, who Jesus never chose, discredits your notion of true apostleship. You include who you like and exclude who you don’t. Nonsense. You discard two-thirds of the NT and think you still have credibility?

Also, in Rev 2:20, Jesus quotes Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 2:10 in disapproving fashion as what the false prophetess Jezebel relies upon to teach it is ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols (see Revelation & Paul), which Paul does give permission to eat at least 2x.

1 Cor 2.10

These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

Rev 2.20

I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

Something’s wrong. Rev 2.20 is not a quote of 1 Cor 2.10. Possibly Rev 2.23?

All the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.

Such hatred. What happened to you? You find one word in common between the two verses and say they are the same thing? And at the same time, you disregard the main points of both: That the Spirit searches the depths of God in 1 Cor 2, but Jesus searches the minds and hearts of men in Rev 2.23. And you can say this is a “quote”?! And that Paul is therefore Jezebel? Amazing.

Jesus would not have been confused. There is no way he is talking about Paul in Rev 2.20. He knew that Paul was talking about Jewish dietary laws in 1 Cor 10.

This is the entire chapter of 1 Cor 2:

When I came to you, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.

6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 13 And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.

14 Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.

16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ.

You say you see a warning about fornication and idolatry here. Truly?!

For these reasons, a Paul-defender, Paul Renan in St. Paul (1875) at 220 said the Apostle John’s book of Revelation was a “cry of hatred against Paul and his friends.”

But for true Christians, this was our Savior’s words, warning us about Paul, not the apostle John expressing hate.

A few mistakes. His name is Ernest, not Paul. He was not a Paul defender: he denied that Paul counted for anything. Volume 1 of Saint Paul was published in 1869. Volume 2 was in 1875.

There is a page 220 in volume 2, and it does contain the phrase “cry of hatred against Paul and his friends.” But Renan is talking about chapters 2 and 3, not the book of Revelation. Possibly not a big error, but it would be refreshing for Doug to get something right now and then.

The “but” is apparently a clue that we are no longer talking about Renan and are now talking about true Christians, which Renan was not (he was a Roman Catholic who left the faith, taught that Jesus was wholly human, and regarded Christianity as a myth). If Doug knows Renan is not a true Christian, we must ask why Renan is used as a source. It would be a simple-enough task to find any number of people who have left the faith to say bad things about Paul. This is bizarre.

Assuming that Doug regards himself as a true Christian, why is he not concerned that on this same page (220), Renan says “John is to these churches a Jewish chief priest”? That doesn’t sound too supportive of his case.

From ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

Joseph-Ernest Renan, (Feb 28, 1823—Oct 2, 1892), French philosopher, historian, and scholar of religion, a leader of the school of critical philosophy in France.

Renan began training for the priesthood and in 1838 was offered a scholarship at the seminary of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet. He later went to the seminary of Saint-Sulpice, where he underwent a crisis of faith that led him to leave the Roman Catholic Church in 1845. In his view, the church’s teachings were incompatible with the findings of historical criticism, but he kept a quasi-Christian faith in God.

When the Vie de Jésus (Life of Jesus) appeared in 1863, it was virulently denounced by the church. Renan’s work was an attempt to reconstruct the mind of Jesus as a wholly human person. He published Les Apôtres (The Apostles) in 1866 and Saint Paul in 1869, to follow the Vie de Jésus as parts of a series, Histoire des origines du christianisme (The History of the Origins of Christianity).

Page 220, Saint Paul:

It is probable that the Jewish-Christians labored on their side to spread the Gospel there. John, who belonged to this party, was received in Asia as an apostle of superior authority to Paul. The Apocalypse, addressed in the year 68 to the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea on the Lycus, appears composed for the Jewish-Christians. Without doubt, between the death of Paul and the editing of the Apocalypse, there was at Ephesus and in Asia, as it were, a second Jewish-Christian preaching. Nevertheless, if Paul had been for ten years the sole chief of the churches of Asia, we cannot understand how he should have been forgotten there so soon. St. Philip and Papias, glories of the church of Hierapolis, Melito, glory of that of Sardis, were Jewish-Christians. Neither Papias nor Polycrates of Ephesus quotes Paul. The authority of John has absorbed everything, and John is to these churches a Jewish chief priest. The churches of Asia in the second century, the church of Laodicea especially, are the scene of a controversy which attaches itself to the vital question of Christianity, and in which the traditional party shows itself not at all in harmony with the ideas of Paul. Montanism is a sort of return to Judaism, in the bosom of Phrygian Christianity. In other words, in Asia, as at Corinth, the memory of Paul after his death appears to have undergone a sort of eclipse during a whole century. Even the churches which he had established abandon him as too compromising a man; so much so, that Paul, in the second century, appears universally disowned.

This reaction must have taken place a short time after the death of the apostle, or perhaps even before. The second and third chapters of the Apocalypse are a cry of hatred against Paul and his friends. This church of Ephesus, which owes so much to Paul, is praised for not being able to bear with them which are evil; for having tried them, which say they are apostles and are not, for having found them liars; for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, “which I also hate,” adds the celestial voice.

Renan’s views are chilling, but they’re supposed to be. He has left the faith. He wants to portray Christianity as a myth. The fact that he correctly lists the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea as being mentioned in chapters 2 and 3 of Revelation does not mean, at all, that his analysis is also correct. His purpose is to destroy, not explain. He is not a friend. He admits he no longer believes. It is a disturbing thing when someone who self-identifies as a disbeliever presumes to explain Scripture.

Renan gives a date for the writing of the Apocalypse of 68. That is very early. The more commonly accepted date is late 80s or 90s. By making it 68, Renan moves Paul into the target zone, because then Paul is either still alive or recently dead. He can then ask how Paul is so quickly forgotten, and he can claim that Paul is being spoken of in Rev 2.2: “This church of Ephesus, which owes so much to Paul, is praised for not being able to bear with them which are evil; for having tried them, which say they are apostles and are not, for having found them liars.”

If Paul has been dead long enough for him to pass from memory, then Rev 2.2 cannot fit him so well, for why praise a church for hating someone who hasn’t been there for 30 years and has been dead for 20? It makes no sense. So Renan dates the Apocalypse to a time when his argument can make sense. Then he can also ask why Paul is so quickly forgotten. It is changing history to fit his scheme, which is, it turns out, a scam.

21. Next, the evidence is that the Apostle John supplanted Paul after Paul’s death, and brought the churches once under Paul’s influence back to orthodoxy. This reflects again that the Twelve treated Pauline doctrines with disapproval.

Apparently, this argument is also taken from page 220 of Renan’s work.

It is generally accepted that John outlived Paul, possibly by 20 or 30 years. That does not necessarily mean that he supplanted him. It might simply mean that once Paul was no longer around, people gravitated toward John as one of the last remaining original witnesses. Paul’s death is an objective fact, not a proof of anything.

Whether John moved the churches away from Paul cannot be known. The view that John did supplant Paul is supported by Renan and others who consider Christianity a myth. That does not mean they are automatically wrong, but it does mean their motives are suspect. And, there are problems with Renan's timeline. He says John wrote the Apocalypse in 68. Paul likely died 64-67. That gives very little time for the churches to move back to John.

But, the insinuation that Paul so intimidated Peter and John that they were helpless until he died is not credible. Nothing in Scripture or Clement hints that the Twelve or James were afraid of Paul. They outnumbered him, and outweighed him in terms of acceptance and authority. If they had to wait for Paul to die to get the churches back to orthodoxy either makes Paul unbelievably forceful or all of them unbelievably pusillanimous.

Also, Scripture says the churches Paul fathered were outside Israel. How did Paul force churches inside Israel to his point of view? That could not have happened. And how did John bring churches he possibly had never visited back to orthodoxy? Also Clement, regardless of his authority to say anything we can believe, never claimed that Paul (or Paul as Simon Magus) founded churches or led churches into heresy.

What lie was Paul was espousing? The same "lie" that has defined the Church for 2000 years? What orthodoxy was John was espousing? Observance of the Sabbath? What is the accusation? That the Law was reclaimed after Paul's death and now Doug is saying by rights we should do back to John's "orthodoxy"? Because it's old?

Paul did not steal the Church from the Twelve. If the Twelve waited until Paul was dead and then brought the churches back to orthodoxy through John, what does that prove? It didn't work. The Church did not go back to the law.

The situation is unbelievable. We have no evidence outside anti-Christian sources that anything was going on, there is no reasonable timeline or explanation for how churches were led astray and then turned back to the truth, there is no reason to believe there was a heretical doctrine of Paul or an orthodox doctrine of John.

22. Paul’s writings, prior to the 300s AD, were found only in a separate booklet—not attached to any gospel, or any epistle of anyone else. This is the P46 manuscript.

Doug is talking about Papyrus 46.

P46 is dated between 175 and 225. That is very early in the collection of the NT writings. It is curious that Doug admits Paul’s writing were collected earlier than 300. One would think the more compelling argument would be that Paul’s writings were not collected so early.

His point seems to be that Paul's writings were found only in P46 and that the Gospels and other writings were broadly circulated. That's not the case. P46 is one of the oldest extant manuscripts in Greek. It contains most of Paul's writings, and Hebrews,

To say that Paul’s were collected in a separate booklet is to only state a fact: that’s the way things were done. It does not mean his writings were restricted by the early church to just one collection. P46 is significant because it is so old and so complete. No other documents earlier than 300 come close. P46 contains 86 pages. The next closest is P45, with 30 pages. Prior to the discovery of P46, we were fortunate to have a fragment or two. P46 changed the landscape. Now we had complete letters, and almost complete collections. P45 was also a goldmine, but it contained no complete letters.

Following is a list of the papyri, sorted by the estimated date of the manuscript. The papyrus number is based on the order of discovery so it is not a measure of the age of the document. Folios were of various sizes, so 78 folios might contain fewer verses than 50 folios. Fragments are portions of pages that contain as little as one verse and up to 40 or 50, but never a complete letter.

You can find the original at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri. I have simplified it, removing the location where the papyri are stored because it doubles the length of the list.

There are no complete folios earlier than 200 AD: only fragments: a total of 56 verses! Papyri 45, 46, 66, and 75 dramatically improved the quality of our source documents. There is nothing suspicious about P46 containing only Paul's letters, nor was it the only example. Paul's writings are contained in 31 other extant papyri between 100 and 800 AD, plus there are 10 papyri containing Luke's account of Paul's life in the book of Acts.

A second chart from this same Wikipedia page shows the papyri numbers plotted by the name of the NT book and the estimated date of the manuscript, up to 800 AD. The extant papyri containing Paul's writings are early and no less complete than any of the other New Testament authors.

(note: "Early" manuscripts are dated from the fourth century or earlier: roughly half the papyri.)

Doug says "Paul’s writings, prior to the 300s AD, were found only in a separate booklet", as if they were tainted. Prior to the 300s, all writings were found in separate booklets or scrolls. It was in the 300s that a new technology was invented: the Book. Until that time, scrolls and single pages or small booklets of parchment or papyrus were used. Paul's writings could not have been collected into a book along with the Gospels and other writings prior to the 300s because there was no such thing.

It was in the 300s, for the first time, that folios were folded and bound into a book. To say that Paul’s writings prior to the 300s AD were found in booklets is to state the obvious: yes, that is how it was done.

Not every NT letter has been found in papyrus form. The earliest manuscript for II Timothy is in the Codex Sinaticus: c 330-360 AD. A codex is a book.

Below is a chart showing the NT letters and their acceptance into canons and inclusion in codexes, and their appraisal by the early church councils.

Paul's writings were not regarded with suspicion by the individuals making their own collections in those early years. Later, the codexes contained all available documents. The councils involved in the formation of the NT canon accepted all the writings that became our New Testament and rejected all the writings that didn't. Paul's letters were not kept separate. The codexes and collections were arranged by author and subject because it was logical, not because Paul's letters were regarded as dubious.