Paul vs. Jesus...the grudge match...

wil

wil

UNeyeR1
Veteran Member
Messages
24,896
Reaction score
4,263
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
In your best Howard Cossell voice...

In this corner....the current champion of modern Christianity....Paul...and his letters....and in the other corner the contender...who would like to avoid throwing to many punches and will dance from Paul's jabs...it is JESUS!!

"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."
~ George Bernard Shaw

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ."
~ Wil Durant (Historian, Philosopher)

"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
~ Wil Durant (Historian, Philosopher)

"The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."
~ Thomas Hardy

"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."
~ Walter Kaufmann (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton)

"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."
~ Albert Schweitzer

"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed and An Atheists for Jesus])
~ Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author)
 
Ah! Seems we've had this discussion in the past.

Is this not at the very heart of the first schism settled at Nicea?

I might add, that with Roman gummint support, one view was advanced and the other retrenched...and irony of ironies the retrenched "losing" side won out the Emperor as a convert. Constantine's deathbed conversion was by an Arian priest and bishop. I suspect Constantine (and other learned scholars of the day) would have been more sympathetic to Thomas Jefferson's view, but there is no way to know with any certainty. Constantine lived his life as a Pagan, yet presided over the consolidation and legalization and government sanctioning of Christianity. I have no doubt left in my mind it was for pragmatic political reasons that he did so.

The end result is that we have only a few "major" branches of the faith. Had he not presided over the consolidation of the faith, I think it is reasonable to presume there would either be far more major branches of the faith, or else the faith would have imploded and self-destructed...neither option would have been practical for the Roman state.
 
 
Are you going to post comments from the contrary perspective from an equally famous list, or is this a totally one-sided argument?
 
I don't see how it is one sided, Thomas, rather as always I try to be all inclusive. I just got done re-reading my conversation with Mr. Garaffa and rebutting his summary. There are parts which I might answer somewhat differently today, but overall I think most of my points still stand quite well.
 
I'm present, too, but as I haven't read a lot of commentary by scholars and as I am not retired I'm going to limit my contribution. Besides I think Paul was legit but that we simply don't understand him today - scholars included. Scholarly opinions vary widely, because Paul is an enigma. People just don't get him.
 
juantoo3 said:
I don't see how it is one sided, Thomas, rather as always I try to be all inclusive...
Click to expand...
Whoops! Sorry, juantoo3, I was referring to the list of quotes at the head of the thread. I haven't had the chance to look at your stuff yet.
 
I think it two fold.... Paul wrote from a day and time with his beliefs and his agenda...whether right or wrong he saw his efforts as bolstering Christianity and growing the movement and keeping people on the path of this new fangled thought...

While Jefferson discounted Paul, he also discounted all the miracles in the gospels...and stuck to the words of Jesus.... While we have the Jeffersonian Gospels, his modifications...one wonders (or maybe just me) what he would have said, done, how he would have edited the Gospel of Thomas.

But back to Paul....I die daily and put the mind in you that is in Christ Jesus.... that is good stuff!
 
Personally, I think the whole subject is fraught.

First...you have to assess the motivation of the detractors. Jefferson...for example...is well known to have been a Deist. Not a bad thing of itself, but that must be considered when deciphering his POV. Likewise, how many of the detracting scholars are atheist and have as a motivation the dismantling of religion in general and Christianity in particular. These things must be considered and placed in perspective.

Then you have to consider the "Bible is literal" vs. "Bible is figurative" arguments, and how they play out over all of this. What do we want to see? What do we want to get out of all of this? Are we after the facts on the ground, or are we after the driving hope for a better humanity?

I concede that likely most of the scholarship probably has some basis in fact...but does that make it "true?" More importantly...what is left after the dust settles? That is the one question I never got an answer to from *any* of the Pauline detractors...how removing Paul from the equation improved Christianity? None of them even responded to what Christianity would even look like at all!, a point I find most disturbing which suggests to me not a building up of brotherhood and fellowship but that of tearing down and destroying. What edifying purpose is there in laying waste to anyone's moral guidebook and teaching?

Are some points of the story embellished? Probably. But then, how many of us would deny our children the whole Santa Claus routine at Christmas? Is that not a lie?

I think we need to place this whole discussion in perspective. As scholarship goes, there are certainly those who can raise points of contention and dismissal...but then, that is true of perhaps the entire Bible, not just the Christian parts of it. For that matter, scholarship can be found to dismiss Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all the other world faiths. The "first world" has already long ago dismissed Animism and Shamanism...and ostensibly Paganism, although if we are truthful with ourselves we still maintain a great deal of Pagan trappings even among atheists.

So what is the purpose? To destroy moral teaching? If so, it isn't all that difficult, the scholarship is out there.

I think the better question is why moral teaching persists in spite of the facts on the ground? You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Yet, across millenia and back into time immemorial we have had and kept our moral teachings. If these teachings are lies, why do we hold them so tightly?

Lastly, an appeal to authority...an authority without which this entire subject is meaningless anyway. Where is the hand of G-d in all of this? If the whole of religion, or any part thereof, were against the design of G-d...wouldn't it come to naught? That is to say, from my perspective anyway, that things are as G-d intended them to be.

If the New Testament is essentially a collection of lies to define moral guidelines, I suspect humanity on the whole is better off with it than without. The same can be said of any of the major world faiths.

So in the end it really doesn't matter. Go ahead and knock down the walls of Jericho. But before you do, show me how it will improve the lot of humanity. If it cannot improve the lot of humanity by doing so, then what is the purpose? The only purpose I can determine is self-aggrandizement. I see no other explanation.
 
There are too many bulls in the china shop, too many who would use a hatchet to remove a fly from their brother's forehead.

There are too many eager to use a bulldozer in a flower garden.

When it comes down to it, a lot of the scholarship is driven by sensationalism and book sales...money. Afterall, its a tough life jetting about for hundreds of thousands of miles touring far flung archeological sites to add your two cents to a finding, to be included in your next sensational best selling thriller for which you've received a million dollar advance (and the publisher stands to make a hundred million)...or else some multimillion dollar grant from a liberal foundation looking to forward a socialist agenda by planting the seeds of doubt in young minds. So here we are back at motivations...and it is all fraught.
 
Great points Juan....

It always interests me how folks hold on to what they know is not true, because it is a portion of their tradition.

I don't see the bible or Christianity as a house of cards...removing that which is shown to be not true will not discount the whole thing...

Just as learning that Santa is not real when you are in your youth does not detract you from enjoying the spirit of Santa Claus and giving when you are in your teens or as an adult, and exactly why you reinstill that spirit in your children....tell them a temporary lie, the fable, the myth, that is carried out so extensively....all the while knowing that one day will come when the mystery is revealed.

Why not so in Christianity? Why never updating the book? Why never be willing to admit that Jonah was an op ed piece like Gullivers travels, that Jesus never doodled in the sand, and John never wrote the word was .... That Mathew Mark Luke and John are not eye witnesses, nor MMLJ?

As Christians do we seriously doubt our beliefs so much that we can't allow scholarship to be involved??

Are we that afraid of the microscope and discussion?
 
wil said:
Are we that afraid of the microscope and discussion?
Click to expand...
I think the literalists are afraid, in part because it does find chinks in the armor.

But we do have to be careful as well...there must be some veracity, or why bother? The trick is finding where that line lays. I'm beginning to think it may lay in a different place for each person...not just subjectively but maybe even objectively. We *have* to have some element to believe in. By this time, the facts are so misconstrued as to be almost irrelevent anyway.
 
I suppose it is like everything.....

the GOP thinks they benefit man the most, and Dems will argue tis their policies.

A surgeon wants to cut, a physical therapist provide therapy, a chiropractor crack your back and a accupuncturist poke you with needles....

as with everything each thinks there was is the best.

Me....I like some of paul...much of paul....but when I see issues or gaps....the words and actions of Jesus....teach us more to care for our fellow man in my eyes.
 
I think a really interesting source on Paul is the Anglican theologian, N.T. Wright. There are various texts of his here.
 
lol Juan....that was a stupid answer!

So it makes me think of Business....you've got a few things to concern yourself with....happy workplace to maintain employees, satisfied customers and an ever increasing bottom line. Well it isn't so easy to keep employees happy, and if you are increasing your bottom line without it..why worry?

So there are two things to concern yourself with....satisfied customers and the bottom line....but again, if the bottom line is doing fine, and a percentage of customers are leaving but the vast majority stick with the product while grumbling, and more are still coming in...and the coffers are filling...and the assets are holding fine....

There is only one thing to worry about the bottom line...not negative press...not whiny customers or worker bees...they'll get over it....they ain't goin anywhere...they've been buying the product despite its problems, there is no need to modify or change, it has worked for years....and with the complaints they still stick around because of the parents and grandparents and children...they all buy it...it is better to buy it than look elsewhere...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top