I would say that Paul was the messenger and the Pauline epistles was the message... from Paul who clearly studied Christianity and took it on the road. I did not see Victor comparing his words with the words from Jesus in the gospels.
I have talked with some Muslim friends who refute parts of the teaching from Paul, and to an extent I have agreed with some of their points; however unlike Victor's Pauline character attack they actually talk about the content and compare it with the Gospels, and the OT. Hard for them to compare with the Qur'an since Paul didn't have that at the time. If Victor could provide some comparisons to the OT and Jesus's words in the Gospels then there would be something more to talk about.
One of the biggest rounds of discussion I have with Muslims relative to Paul is in Romans dealing with Law. With them I tend to refer to what Jesus said of Faith in Law, whereas there is a strong trend in Islam to adhering to laws made by Fatwas from scholars, etc... I feel then law becomes a life of worrying about what is good or bad from a website, with submission to the scholars or religously elected instead of to Allah (swt). So I come back to Christianity and the OT and test the definition of Faith that I understand in law as an agreement between people, and the required judgement and forgiveness thereof... but it gets equally derailed. Anyhow it seems to me that LAW in the Pauline epistle Romans is one of the most refuted. I refute some of Paul's words too, but would by comparison with the teaching from Jesus in the gospels.
Hmmmm . . . speaking of refutations.
Let me show you things from another angle.
You can only refute reasoning that is logical, mathematical or has formal semantics. Reasoning that isn't logical, mathematical or has formal
semantics cannot be refuted.
If Paul was arguing logically, he opens himself up to be refuted. But if Paul was using something other than logical reasoning, his ideas can't be refutated as that falls outside the domain of logical reasoning.
What other kinds of reasoning could Paul be using apart from logical reasoning? It can't be mathematical reasoning as there are no equations in Paul's writings. I don't see any formal semantics either, as obviously Paul's ideas are not expressed in formally structured expressions.
The only other kind of reasoning I can think of is
emotional reasoning, which has no inherent structure. If Paul's ideas were meant to provoke an emotional response from the Christian community by discussing their relationship with God, then it's certainly not logic and therefore can't be refuted as only logic and maths can be refuted.
Logical/mathematical reasoning is quantitative while emotional reasoning is qualitative. I would agree that there is a "sense of correctness" in both kinds of reasoning, but out of the two, only logical/mathematical statements can be labelled as definitely correct or incorrect. In emotional reasoning, there is still a "sense of correctness" but that is subjective. The "correctness" of any emotional sentiment is measured by how much emphasis it puts on the
important things (the big rocks) in life.
A very common "anecdote" is the process of putting a collection of rocks of different sizes in the same container as few bucket-fulls of sand. If you put the sand in first, then the small rocks, you won't be able to fit the big rocks in. But if you start with the big rocks first, it might be easier to get the small rocks in and the sand afterwards.
Logical/mathematical reasoning is a structured approach that tries to fit everything inside a uniform, elegant model. Emotional reasoning does not confine itself to uniform, elegant models, but is driven first by what's important -- one's priorities. Get the big rocks in first and the small rocks and little grains of sand will happily fit in afterwards.
There's a way in which Paul's ideas might work even if you can't find any logical consistency in what he says. a simple resolution may be that Paul wasn't trying to use logic at all!!!
If Paul was reasoning about people, their relationships with each other and their personal feelings for themselves and each other, then he was using emotional reasoning. The question is whether Paul addressed the big rocks in life. Paul wasn't trying to make up rules for our relationship with God, as the curtain veiling the Holy of Holies was torn open, removing all obstacles between as and God.
What were Paul's big rocks? The big rocks were the assurance that we were free from "the Law." The question is what he meant by "the Law." The idea that Paul was probably trying to convey was that we were barred from a direct, personal and intimate relationship with God by rules, doctrines, protocols and technicalities that made that relationship impersonal. This was "the Law."
"The Law" as Paul depicted it could have been a combination of both God's Law as given to Israel and man-made rules. God's Law bound Israel to a Covenant, an agreement. The man-made rules could have been an application of that Law. Regardless, I think Paul's reasoning was that this was a temporary measure. He was perhaps suggesting that Christ's death was a way of annulling the authority of those man-made rules, as well as the impersonal aspects of the Law revealed to Moses.
The personal aspects of the Law (ie. Ten Commandments, Sabbath) may actually still be valid, and the impersonal aspects of the Law were perhaps what was dissolved by Christ's death. That was probably what Paul was really trying to say. It really depends what we mean by "Law" when we use the word.
But the point is that Paul wasn't necessarily making rules (that someone had to die for us). That seems to be the kind of objection that a lot of people have about Paul's ideas -- that we needed someone to sacrifice himself to save us.
Paul's message was probably meant more for those who were worried that their failure to conform to the rules they were taught would disqualify them from being one of God's people. So Paul sought to assure them. Nevertheless, his message might become valid for the rest of us at different stages in our lives.
But . . . my point? Well, I don't think it's really up to us to say whether Paul is wrong or not. Because Paul's reasoning is probably not driven by logic, it can't be refuted. Whatever we say about Paul's writings will pretty much always by subjective. The idea that Paul's ideas can be refuted is itself subjective as that assumes Paul was reasoning by logic.
