In this segment, Dr. Badawi continues his assault on Paul and his teachings. Dr. Badawi does this by using a series of passages written by Paul, which he quotes out of the context in which they were written. He also throws in a great deal of conjecture in an attempt to discredit Paul.
Jamal Badawi: After Jesus, there was some disagreement over whether the teachings of Jesus should be spread to the Gentiles or only to the Jews. Peter was the head of the disciples who saw Jesus as the revival of the same guidance that was given to the Jews, and his basis in Matthew 15:24 Jesus said that He was sent to Israel and this is the way that Peter saw the mission of Jesus. Paul held the view that it should be spread to all and he was given these instructions by Jesus. Galatians 1:10-12:
In other words he says that he is not teaching what he learned from other men but a revelation from Jesus. Barnabas took a moderate approach that it should be spread to all but what Jesus taught should not be compromised for the Gentiles. Barnabas hoped that Paul would moderate his views and teach only what Christ taught but Paul was much more inclined to compromise.
Where do I begin?
Issue 1 What evidence does Dr. Badawi have that suggests the split between Paul and Barnabas involved issues other than Paul's objection to John Mark going on another missions trip?
Issue 2 Did Peter and the other Apostles object to the idea of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to non Jews? No, they did not object!
Peter, James and Barnabas agreed with Paul:
Issue 3 How did the teachings of Jesus and Paul differ? What views did Paul need to "moderate" according to your information concerning Barnabas? Does Dr. Badawi have any proof, or does he rely only on insinuation?
Gives a background of the people that Paul attempted to attract. A rumor spread in Greece that these were gods in human form and they prepared a sacrifice. That story indicates that the Greeks believed that gods came in human form. The way in which Paul spoke about Jesus is close to this.
What? Clearly Paul and Barnabas denied that they were gods! Why does Dr. Badawi object to Paul preaching to the Pagans? Muhammad also preached his message to the Pagans of Arabia! The difference is that Paul did not change the message of Jesus to appeal to the Pagans. For a comparison, Dr. Badawi should consider Muhammad's near compromise with Paganism in the incident of the Satanic Verses.
Paul however, did not want to change the customs of people, he wanted to accommodate the Greek Roman background and knew that these people would have a hard time following the dietary laws and circumcision. His teachings were easy. Paul needed Barnabas because he was not an eye witness and Barnabas gave him credibility with the Gentiles. After the first missionary trip, it appears that Paul gained ground and did not need Barnabas and that is why some wonder that Paul did not agree to take John Mark on the second trip. Barnabas could not contradict Paul. Paul became well established and founded Pauline Christianity.
Paul was also a devote Jew who observed the law. The problem is a matter of definition. According to the Old Testament, the law consists of two parts: The moral law, and the ritual law.
The moral law deals with the nature of man: his mind and soul. In the moral law, God is concerned about our relationship with Him and our relationships with our fellow humans. relationships.
While the moral law is concerned with our relationship with God and our fellow humans, the ritual law prescribes a set of symbolic rituals that reminds us of Gods's moral law. The ritual law is totally dependant on the moral law and without the moral law, the ritual the ritual law is empty. For example, does it do any good for me to bath before I pray while I have sin in my heart? By itself, the ritual has no power to bring me closer to God, and that is not its function. Incidentally, Muslims may not know that there is much more to the law than circumcision and abstaining from pork. The Book of Leviticus is full of other dietary and hygienic regulations.
Jesus said in Matthew 22: 35-40 :
In other words, Jesus said that every law, moral law or ritual law, hangs on the law of love. In fact, any act that keeps to the letter of the law, but not to the law of love is a sin! What about Jesus and the ritual law? At times, it appeared that Jesus broke the ritual law. For example, in Matthew 12:1-8, Jesus appeared to break the law of the Sabbath by picking grain and feeding His followers. Did Jesus sin? No way! Jesus was obedient to the law of Love, and in the light of the law of Love, Jesus interpreted the law of the Sabbath. It was simple, His friends were hungry, so he gave them something to eat. Another beautiful example occurs in Matthew 12:9-15 where Jesus appears to break the law of the Sabbath when he healed a man with a withered arm. The religious officials immediately pointed out the Jesus broke the law. Jesus answered them:
Once again, Jesus teaches the same lesson that all of the laws are derived from the law of love. Jesus demonstrated the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. These men were extremely diligent in keeping the letter of the law, but they did not love their fellow man - in this case a man who had a withered arm.
Paul's view of the law was exactly the same. In 1 Corinthians 13:1 Paul said:
Compare the words of Paul and Jesus concerning the moral law:
Paul said: (Romans 13:8-10)
Jesus said (Matthew 22:37-40):
Where is the difference Dr. Badawi?
Now compare the words of Paul and Jesus concerning the ritual law:
Paul said (Romans 2:28-29):
Jamal Badawi: Yes, after the split with Barnabas, Barnabas went back to Cyprus and Paul had gathered many followers and had credibility. He still needed someone who was an eye witness of Christ for authority. Paul convinced Peter to go with him to preach to the Gentiles. This is interesting because Peter originally opposed Paul. Even in his approach, Peter believed that the message should be directed to the Israelites as Jesus instructed. Peter was the right person for Paul's purpose because he was a fearful person. This was a time of great persecution and Peter felt that if he fell in line and compromised with Paul's teachings, there would be less persecution if they altered the teachings of Christ. I Peter 3:13-18 where Peter says that you should submit to the rulers. Peter was not really as strong minded as Barnabas and he compromised.
Peter was a "fearful person"? He was put to death for preaching God's word!
He claims that he is teaching according to his own revelation and understanding. Is he referring to himself or did he mean the Gentiles can understand what they did not see? The only way the Gentiles heard about Jesus was through Paul, they had no other sources.
Dr. Badawi, in his never ending attempt to insult Paul, fails to realized that Paul is referring to Isaiah 52:15:
What is the other law, his own teaching. He shifted emphasis from Jesus as a Prophet to a mythical figure which the Greeks and Roman assimilated into their mythology and incorporate Greek terms. Paul did not directly preached the divinity of Christ or the Trinity. But the way that he preached, opened the door to these misconceptions. Paul became even bolder as his popularity increased.
First, what were Paul's innovations? Second, Dr. Badawi, once again, quotes Paul out of context. Let us continue to read this passage (verses 5-12 ):
It is amazing how quickly Dr. Badawi's arguments [actually the Jehovah's Witness' arguments] disappear when the passage is quoted in context.
Jamal Badawi: 1 Corinthians 6:12:
I have no obligation to follow the law, I am a law by myself. In apparent response people objected,
Once again, we see Dr. Badawi taking a passage out of context. Let's read verses 9-15 and ask ourselves if Paul is saying that he is a law by himself:
Once again, Dr. Badawi's interpretation is not supported by the text!
This is very important and reflect Paul's methodology. Paul is talking about his falsehood or lies that God's truth abounds. Was Paul aware that what he was teaching was not true but some good may come out of it? If you say that good may come out of evil, the ends justify the means. Another question is did Paul apply the same approach when he claimed that Jesus appeared to him? Did he use the same approach? Many historians have been critical of Paul.
Are you suggesting that Paul was distorting the truth to make his point? First we need to see how Dr. Badawi distorts the words of Paul!
In this passage, Paul is discussing a hypothetical argument that someone might use in order to justify lying: having quoted this argument he then refutes it! There is no way in which, having read the quotation in context, you could honestly accuse Paul of deception by teaching Christians to says things that were not true.
Jamal Badawi: The Jesus Report edited by Johannes Lehmann, he quotes Werge - the discontinuity between Jesus and the Jesus of the church makes them scarcely recognizable. Schonfield said that the Pauline heresy became a foundation of Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate church was called heretical. Paul's role was to destroy the teachings of Jesus according to a Christian historian. Both versions of Christianity exist, the absolute monotheistic and the wider Pauline doctrine.
I have never heard of this book, nor have I read it. It appears to be out of print, therefore, I cannot honestly comment on it. However, there have been some scholars who have questioned the origins of Christianity and have attempted to discredit the teachings of the Bible and the Church. To date, none have shown adequate evidence, in my mind, to support their opinions. Many, like Dr. Badawi use conjecture to construct theories which are not supported by historical evidence.
Responses to Jamal Badawi's "Radio Al-Islam Channel RA 200"
Answering Islam Home Page