Novoplatonski filozof Porfirije (oko 233-309) kritikuje apostole, posebno Pavla, jer su pisali izmišljene laži i pripisali Isusu stvari koje nikada nije radio. Porfirije ocenjuje da je Pavlova nedosljednost „proračunata lukavština, svjesna dvoličnost”, kojom se želi svima dodvoriti:
Pavle želi biti svima sve, Židov sa Židovima, Grk s Grcima, barbarin s barbarima, a sve je to laskanje požudama ljudi u želji za taštom slavom i za dobrim parama.[19]
— PorfirijeEuzebije početkom 4. veka piše o postojanju judeo-hrišćana ebionita, koji smatraju da je potrebno odbaciti Poslanice apostola Pavla, nazivajući ga odstupnikom.[20]Novovekovni filozof Fridrih Niče smatra da je Pavle, „taj užasni varalica” krivotvorio Isusovu poruku, i istorijsku istinu Evanđelja. Niče smatra da nisam Pavle nije verovao u laž o „uskrslom” Isusu koju je širio, već je to činio iz koristoljublja:
==============================
Adventisti - Prva Zapovest ili Trojstvo
Goran Šušljić
Jevrejski praznici i u Novom Zavetu?-“Braća su se nadala da bi Pavle ovim činom mogao odlučno opovrgnuti lažne izveštaje o njemu. Ali dok je Jakov uveravao Pavla da je odluku pređašnjeg sabora (Dela Apostolska 15) koja se tiče obraćenika iz neznaboštva i obrednog zakona i dalje dobro držati, dati savet nije bio u skladu sa tom odlukom, koja je takođe bila potvrđena od svetog Duha. Duh Božji nije pokrenuo ovaj savet. To je bio plod kukavičluka. Nepristajanjem na obredni zakon, hrišćani bi navukli na sebe mržnju neverujućih Jevreja, i izložili sebe surovom progonstvu“ {Ellen White: The Sketches From The Life of Paul, p. 212.1} „The brethren hoped that by this act Paul might give a decisive contradiction of the false reports concerning him. But while James assured Paul that the decision of the former council (Acts 15) concerning the Gentile converts and the ceremonial law still held good, the advice given was not consistent with that decision which had also been sanctioned by the holy Spirit. The Spirit of God did not prompt this advice. It was the fruit of cowardice. By non-conformity to the ceremonial law, Christians would bring upon themselves the hatred of the unbelieving Jews, and expose themselves to severe persecution.“-„Učenici se još negovali poštovanje prema ceremonijalnom zakonu i bili su suviše spremni na ustupke, nadajući se da na taj način dobiju poverenje svojih sunarodnika, skinu predrasude, i zadobiju ih za veru u Hrista kao Spasitelja sveta. Pavlov veliki cilj posete Jerusalimu je bio da zadobije poverenje crkve u Palestini. Dokle god su negovali predrasude protiv njega, oni su stalno radili na suprotstavljanju njegovom uticaju. Pavle je smatrao, da ako je moguć bilo koji zakonit ustupak sa njegove strane da ih zadobije za istinu, uklonio bi veoma veliku prepreku za uspeh evanđelja na drugim mestima. Ali on nije bio ovlašćen od Boga da ustupi toliko koliko su oni tražili. Ovaj ustupak nije bio u skladu sa njegovim učenjem, niti sa čvrstim integritetom njegovog karaktera. Njegovi savetnici nisu bili nepogrešivi. Iako su neki od ovih ljudi pisali pod nadahnućem Duha Božijeg, ipak, onda kada nisu bili pod Njegovim direktnim uticajem, ponekad bi pogrešili. Biće zapamćeno da se jednom prilikom Pavle suprotstavio Petru u lice jer je postupao dvolično. Kada uzmemo u obzir Pavlovu veliku želju da bude u skladu sa njegovom braćom, njegove nežnosti duha prema slabima u veri, njegovo poštovanje za apostole koji su bili sa Hristom i za Jakova, brata Gospodnjeg, i njegov cilj da postane svima sve, koliko je mogao to uraditi a da ne ne žrtvuje princip, kada uzmemo u obzir sve ovo, tada ne čudi da je bio pokrenut da odstupi od svog čvrstog, odlučnog pravca delovanja. Ali, umesto da ostvari željeni cilj, ovi napori za pomirenje samo su ponaglili krizu, ubrzali predviđene Pavlove patnje, odvojili ga od njegove braće u njegovom radu, lišili crkvu jednog od njenih najjačih stubova, i doneli tugu u srca Hrišćana u svim zemljama." {Ellen White: The Sketches From The Life of Paul, p. 212-214.1} “The disciples themselves yet cherished a regard for the ceremonial law, and were too willing to make concessions, hoping by so doing to gain the confidence of their countrymen, remove their prejudice, and win them to faith in Christ as the world’s Redeemer. Paul’s great object in visiting Jerusalem was to conciliate the church of Palestine. So long as they continued to cherish prejudice against him, they were constantly working to counteract his influence. He felt that if he could by any lawful concession on his part win them to the truth, he would remove a very great obstacle to the success of the gospel in other places. But he was not authorized of God to concede so much as they had asked. This concession was not in harmony with his teachings, nor with the firm integrity of his character. His advisers were not infallible. Though some of these men wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, yet when not under its direct influence they sometimes erred. It will be remembered that on one occasion Paul withstood Peter to the face because he was acting a double part. When we consider Paul’s great desire to be in harmony with his brethren, his tenderness of spirit toward the weak in faith, his reverence for the apostles who had been with Christ, and for James, the brother of the Lord, and his purpose to become all things to all men as far as he could do this and not sacrifice principle,—when we consider all this, it is less surprising that he was constrained to deviate from his firm, decided course of action. But instead of accomplishing the desired object, these efforts for conciliation only precipitated the crisis, hastened the predicted sufferings of Paul, separated him from his brethren in his labors, deprived the church of one of its strongest pillars, and brought sorrow to Christian hearts in every land.“245
Zbog straha od progona od strane Jevreja, u Jerusalimu je učinjen kompromis da se drži i ceremonijalni zakon, šta je bilo direktno protiv volje svetog Duha tj. Boga. |
