Howdy, howdy. Here's the next argument point from a convo I had with my father.
The argument, paraphrased from memory:
"Paul-istianity. I don’t like Paul. The only reason gentiles got the gospel was because Paul spread it. If anything, Christianity should be called Paul-istiantiy, because if it wasn’t for Paul, it’d still be only Israelites believing it."
As for Jesus only witnessing to the Jews and not Gentiles in general: maybe at first, yes. He came first to Israel, but again, then later told them to Go and share the Good News to the ends of the earth. Despite that, during Jesus’s ministry, a Samaritan woman wanted something from Him and He dismissed her at first, but she persisted, and He granted her a miracle because of her “great faith.” He heals a Roman soldier’s servant. He traveled through Gentile regions and witnessed in Samaria, which was considered a SERIOUS no-no back then. In John, He talks about getting other sheep from other pens, after His whole ministry he refers to Israel as His sheep and being the Good Shepherd and encouraging them to stay in Safe Pasture. And then later, after He tells His disciples to Go and spread the Good News of His coming across the ends of the earth, in Acts, this is when we see Peter go to Cornelius and teaches other Jews to minister to Gentiles as well, not just Israelites. Even in Matthew (near the end of the book), we see Jesus calling His disciples to spread the word of the good news of His coming to everyone, not just the Jews. It is not just Paul who spreads the gospel to the Gentiles, even though he may have been a main driver of it.
In the Bible, my favorite, most-reliable books I’d say
(though I believe them all to be) are the four gospels, as well as Acts, 1 John
1-3, and 1 Peter (I love some of Paul’s letters, too, but I won’t list them, as
I know you don’t like or credit Paul much). I put a heavy amount of reliability
on Luke and Acts given the association of the author with the direct disciples
following Jesus’s death and resurrection, and all the other historical
fact-checking that has been done about the New Testament, though I know you
might not, given that Luke was a companion of Paul and you dislike Paul. The
reliability for what they are though is pretty strong, and Paul Himself was not
a stranger to the original disciples.
All this to say: even if Paul was the main driver of the
gospel reaching Gentiles (like me and you), I do not think that that discredits
God’s work or use through Paul. In the books of the NT, it also goes back to
the fact that God can and does use folks for His purposes. Ever since His
ministry on Earth, He linked up with folks people would not expect: tax
collectors, prostitutes, thieves, etc. He doesn’t hang with them and “let them
do them;” He hangs with them and calls them to righteousness, to turn away from
their old ways, and teaches them how to overcome their sin. But it does not
surprise me that the person He’d use to spread His gospel to the world would
yet again be someone the world would not expect: a former prosecutor of the
Christians. If anything, what a big IMPACT that would have, instead of
relying on someone already known to be fervent?
After all, what ELSE would someone have to experience to
make them flip 180 like that? Either they are fickle as crap and want what benefits
they can get (but that wasn’t Saul/Paul– he LOST everything to become a
Christian and follow Christ. Went from the top of the top the lowest of the
low), or something seriously real and crazy happened (folks change all the time
after Near Death Experiences, etc, for a weaker example, and there are several
accounts happening today in 2024 where folks in the Middle East are having
visions and dreams of the Biblical Jesus after having never read the Bible and
in some cases, never heard OF Him, yet their accounts align with the Bible’s.
He reaches many, across many ways and avenues and methods.). Also: some people
may discredit Paul because his name was changed from Saul. But not only are
people allowed to grow and learn and change (repent), but God changes people’s
names ALL the time, across the OT and NT. Abram to Abraham. Sarai to Sarah.
Jacob to Israel. Simon to Peter. Saul to Paul. And there are more I can’t
recall (lol, that rhymed). A name change back in the ancient Near East was
indicative of a role change, a perspective change, a change of heart and of
purpose and a calling given etc. It is not unusual, to me, as a believer, that
He did this or used who He did.
(Bonus fun fact: “Saul” means “asked for from God,” and
“Paul” means “humble.”)
Lastly, I will again grant that most of the gentile
preaching might have derived from Paul, but again, it was also called for by
Jesus Himself, done so Himself, and His disciples were some of the first to
witness to gentiles. But even if that wasn’t true (it is), if Jesus did not
want the gospel preached to the gentiles, His disciples (who were very much
alive and active and traveled with and along and passed by Paul often) would
have stepped up and fought to defend against it as they did throughout their
ministries until their deaths, and they didn’t; if anything, they participated
in it and encouraged it, beginning with Peter and Jesus Himself.
I hope this helps and hope it helps you rest in the
reliability of Paul’s letters alongside the gospels themselves as the most
studied and cross-checked documents in history today. Please feel free to
reply/provide a counter argument/question/etc. God bless!
Mark 16
Matthew 10
Acts 8
Matthew 28
Acts 1
1 Peter 5
Luke 24
No comments:
Post a Comment