An on-going argument: How "non-Jesus" was Paul, really?

TABLE OF CONTENTS and INTRO

Someone recently sent me the URL for a site by a Muslim [no longer in existence in 2020], in which he basically attacked Paul's beliefs, integrity, and legitimacy. When I read the material, the section on Paul was so appalling (pun intended) that I had to respond.

Now, let me be clear about a few things about the writer's position.

• First, I have no idea if this person's writing is a genuinely Muslim position.
• Second, I have no idea if this person's writing is representative of "official" Muslim position.
• Thirdly, I have no idea if this person's writing is considered a "good" Muslim presentation of the case.
• What I DO KNOW that this position is woefully mistaken (especially for one that is SO 'dogmatic' and polemical in its tone)--irrespective of 'liberal vs. conservative' Christian approaches.

1. To show that the writer's use of the data is incorrect;
2. To show that the writer only uses an unrepresentative minority of the evidence available
3. To show that the writer's argument is apparently unaware of the majority of the data on the subject;
4. To show that the writer's argument cannot be trusted to give an adequate and accurate portrayal of Paul's views

As usual, the writer's words will be in "BOLD" QUOTES, and mine in regular font. And, since the writer will be quoting 'uncritically' from the New Testament, I will do the same without asking questions of authenticity, spurious additions, etc.
Section One has the following topics covered:

• Paul's gospel of a "Crucified Christ" was his invention?
• Paul preached a different gospel than Jesus?
• Paul had NO interest in the life of Jesus?
• Paul had NO interest in the WORDS or TEACHINGS of Jesus?
• Paul's gospel was an anti-Law accommodation to the corrupt governments?

Section two, has the following topics covered:

• Does Paul have a 'low view' of the Law?
• Is Paul's view of the Law radically different from that of Peter, James, John, and the Writer to the Hebrews?
• Was the essence of the Law really 'sovereignty'?
• Did Jesus come to perpetuate the Mosaic Law?
• But didn't Jesus strongly affirm the Law in Matthew 5.17-19?
• Did Jesus restrict His gospel message to the Jews?
• (Summary)

Section three has the following topics covered:

• Does Paul's tone, attacks, and self-defenses indicate he was radically different from the Jerusalem leadership?
• Were Paul's opponents in his letters a 'Jerusalem pro-Law' party?
• Was Paul really 'non-James', 'non-Peter', 'non-John', 'non-Jerusalem', etc?

I will be adding more as I work through the different sections of the document... 
.....................................................
[ --muslix.html--  ]