Dream said:
Also, I'm not going to defend Paul.
Ok, then I will. In that case, pity Paul. But seriously, as I see it, Paul stands in need of no defense.
As Juantoo3 pointed out, possibly multiple writers contributed to him, and its possible that his letters might contradict some things in Hebrews.
Oddly (or perhaps paradoxically) enough, I sometimes consider the contradictions within Christianity as contributing to its structural strength. In a certain light, Christianity looms largely above me, like some other-dimensional Golden Gate or Mackinac Bridge, held together and conjoined by the sheer tension of its constituent, numberless and opposing parts. That is cosmic architecture. It is electric.
Also, how can I check him against Torah if my primary guideline for understanding him is that he complies with it?
I would not know. I, for my part, don’t make him comply with Torah, at least as it was received and interpreted by the religious elites of his era. From my standpoint, if all had been well with the system as it was, there would have been no need for reformers and, ultimately, a redeemer.
So then I might shoehorn his words into a compliant frame but without really knowing if he meant them to be. Its a guess but might not be the right one.
Anyway, there is no harm in trying to defend him. I, myself, sometimes hold St. Paul at arm’s length because, as you have probably gathered from
other threads, I rather accept one of his arch-critics, Nietzsche’s, assessment of Paul to be at best ambiguous, but still am grateful to the latter because, as I see it, he, by his evangelizing efforts, was the primary means by which this gentile, at any rate, who had
"walk’ed in darkness" and the shadow of death saw a great Light –that is to say, Jesus.
Best regards,
Serv