Christianity minus Paul

1st I'd like to challenge the law aspic of your debate:



1. Christ said he came to fulfill the law and not to end it. Paul said he came to end the Law, and if we are in Christ we are free of the Law.
Click to expand...


Matt 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
KJV


Rom 8:2
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
NKJV

I dont see a contradiction.... If you Love as Christ said you will have no sin? Maybe you misunderstand the scripture.

ok they moved it to comparative studies board (http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?p=42889#post42889)
 
Last edited:
Without Paul, we would have the Jerusalem Church under James. IMHO the "church" would not have spread to the Gentiles but would evolve as a separate Jewish sect with some gentile converts.

That being said, I agree with Thomas Jefferson that Paul was the original corruptor of Christianity. What we have now is Christ according to Paul and the real Jesus is lost in obscurity.

To give the devil his due, Paul was a zealous missionary and a master of organization. Peter just didn't have the skills of Paul in organizing and spreading a new religion, albeit one filled with Helenic myths and far removed from its Jewish roots.
 
photon said:
Without Paul, we would have the Jerusalem Church under James. IMHO the "church" would not have spread to the Gentiles but would evolve as a separate Jewish sect with some gentile converts.

That being said, I agree with Thomas Jefferson that Paul was the original corruptor of Christianity. What we have now is Christ according to Paul and the real Jesus is lost in obscurity.

To give the devil his due, Paul was a zealous missionary and a master of organization. Peter just didn't have the skills of Paul in organizing and spreading a new religion, albeit one filled with Helenic myths and far removed from its Jewish roots.
Click to expand...

That would make for a great book. But I suspect that the "Savior" is bigger than us. Hence this is a mute issue. What if does not matter, since "GOD" would see to it that the issue is covered...

With respect to all, I point out that God is God. He/She/It...wins. :eek:

v/r

Q
 
photon said:
Without Paul, we would have the Jerusalem Church under James. IMHO the "church" would not have spread to the Gentiles but would evolve as a separate Jewish sect with some gentile converts.

That being said, I agree with Thomas Jefferson that Paul was the original corruptor of Christianity. What we have now is Christ according to Paul and the real Jesus is lost in obscurity.

To give the devil his due, Paul was a zealous missionary and a master of organization. Peter just didn't have the skills of Paul in organizing and spreading a new religion, albeit one filled with Helenic myths and far removed from its Jewish roots.
Click to expand...

that is odd. jesus said his church would be built upon Peter, not paul or james & from what i can see, the original message of the gospel of Christ came by way of peter just like jesus said it would.
i dont see where the real jesus was lost by paul in obscurity considering the same exact message of the DBR of Christ came by way of peter first then paul later accepted it the same way peter preached it.
 
Bandit said:
that is odd. jesus said his church would be built upon Peter, not paul or james & from what i can see, the original message of the gospel of Christ came by way of peter just like jesus said it would.
i dont see where the real jesus was lost by paul in obscurity considering the same exact message of the DBR of Christ came by way of peter first then paul later accepted it the same way peter preached it.
Click to expand...

It's an opinion Bandit buddy, not gospel ;)

Jesus did not pick Paul to be blinded for three days for nothing...every cause needs a charismatic leader, and a lawyer. Peter was the charismatic one and Paul was the lawyer. No one likes lawyers, because they have to do the dirty work, and they tell it like it is. Paul told people when they were violating the very principles of Christian thought. Extremely Liberal minded people do not like to be told they are wrong, nor to be told they can't do something, just because they want to. Paul adhered to the adage "just because it feels good, doesn't make it right".

v/r

Q
 
Excellent post, Quahom1!

I have just been reading a letter from Clement of Rome to the church in Corinth, written about 90AD - those bloomin' Corinthians, up to their old tricks again!

What always strikes me is that Paul tells us how we should be, and more importantly explains why, from a spiritual and metaphysical perspective.

John, on the other hand, just exhorts people to love each other - so John is all warm and fuzzy and vague and nice, plenty of scope for self-affirmation, but that doesn't alter the fact that people do not love each other (we love ourselves too much), and John is quite forthright on what happens if we don't - we die.

Thomas
 
Christianity minus Paul would have been just the gospel of the NT.

Just remember that Jesus preached His messaage and only quoted from the OT.
If Jesus did not need to quote from Paul, why would we?
 
Any discussion of Paul should be framed by an understanding of this article:

Robert Eisenman: "Paul as Herodian"
Paul as Herodian. Robert Eisenman. Institute for Jewish-Christian Origins. California State University at Long Beach. JHC 3/1 (Spring, 1996), 110-122. ... literature, Rabbinic literature, and Josephus which point to some connection between Paul and so-called "Herodians ...
www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html - More from
 
Greeting all,

Yes, Paul is an very important part of Christ body without him there is no Christian like this time. But you should use your intellectual to respons every Paul's letter.

Christian isn't a religion, it is a believe. So there isn't any written law in Christian, even inside the bible itself. Rather the Christian law is in our heart.

There isn't any written Word of God in Christian as Torah, but all speaking in our heart.

As a teaching (not Word of God) of Christian, Pauls letter was one of those exist. Even there was a teaching that you should read first rather than Pauls, The Teaching of Twelve. But why not included in bible? WHY????? suspicious isn't it???

Teaching of Christian just like a spiritual food, for whom just spiritual rebirth as a spiritual baby he should be given a bottle of milk. But for whom already matured, he should be given hard one (e.g meat, cereal, vegetable ~ spiritual) and Pauls teaching was milk, milk for Corinthian, Ephesian, Galatian, etc.

If you understand this reply then you are a mature one, if you don't understand then you are not yet mature or even you haven't rebirth yet. GBU.
 
Kindest Regards, heaven id!
heaven_id said:
The Teaching of Twelve. But why not included in bible? WHY????? suspicious isn't it???
Click to expand...
I am not sure I follow what you are trying to say. John wrote, Peter wrote, and James the brother of Jesus wrote. I would think they are about as close to being counted among the twelve as any could be.

Teaching of Christian just like a spiritual food, for whom just spiritual rebirth as a spiritual baby he should be given a bottle of milk. But for whom already matured, he should be given hard one (e.g meat, cereal, vegetable ~ spiritual) and Pauls teaching was milk, milk for Corinthian, Ephesian, Galatian, etc.

If you understand this reply then you are a mature one, if you don't understand then you are not yet mature or even you haven't rebirth yet. GBU.
Click to expand...
If you really do understand, then you also understand that Paul wrote on many levels, not just the milk of babes, but even very deep mysteries, that is if you are mature enough as you say.
 
WolfgangvonUSA said:
Christianity minus Paul would have been just the gospel of the NT.

Just remember that Jesus preached His messaage and only quoted from the OT.
If Jesus did not need to quote from Paul, why would we?
Click to expand...

OIC. so we should just quote from the OT then because that is what Jesus did.
 
Kindest Regards, Wolfgang! It's been awhile.
WolfgangvonUSA said:
Any discussion of Paul should be framed by an understanding of this article:
Click to expand...
I started through this article, but got bogged down about a third of the way through. I hope to get through it. The name Eisenman sounds familiar, but I haven't been able to place it with other work.

I think it would help a great deal if you were to pull a few quotes to highlight what specific points you are attempting to make, and go from there.
 
I love this. Without Paul there is no Christianity. There is a bunch of people to convert to a strange form of Judeasm, wherein Jesus is the Messiah, but nothing about how to behave (save for Jesus' comments about dealing with others), exists.

Paul gives rules and order.

I know, rules and order do not sit well with some...none the less, that is exactly what Paul did.

my thoughts

v/r

Q
 
Kindest Regards, Bandit!
Bandit said:
OIC. so we should just quote from the OT then because that is what Jesus did.
Click to expand...
I think I see what Wolfgang is trying to say, I caught myself on that tangent once upon a time. He is correct, Jesus taught from the Old Testament. The New Testament wasn't around for him to quote from.

But in following the thought to its conclusion, that is the exclusion of Paul's teaching, then what I see left is a "new denomination" of Judaism, maybe call it the original messianic Judaism. Of course, that means one must be of Jewish decent and Jewish blood, or a convert willing to ascribe to all Jewish law, statute and ordinance in effect (including circumcision, including not eating pork or shellfish, including all of the what? 614 or so "laws" that comprise Judaism. So why bother, just convert to Judaism proper and be done with it.

In other words, no Paul, no Christianity. And certainly no Jesus for the multitudes. In the end, I believe this is the real motivation behind this whole pseudo-scholarly fuss to begin with.

Paul was no angel, at least not in his early life. But he was sincere if nothing else. Personally, I think he more than atoned for his shortcomings. If only I had that kind of intestinal fortitude.

No guts, no glory. It doesn't take any guts to sit back and point a finger.
 
Kindest Regards, Q!
Quahom1 said:
I love this. Without Paul there is no Christianity. There is a bunch of people to convert to a strange form of Judeasm, wherein Jesus is the Messiah, but nothing about how to behave (save for Jesus' comments about dealing with others), exists.

Paul gives rules and order.

I know, rules and order do not sit well with some...none the less, that is exactly what Paul did.
Click to expand...
What's the old saw?..."Great minds think alike"... :D
 
juantoo3 said:
I am not sure I follow what you are trying to say. John wrote, Peter wrote, and James the brother of Jesus wrote. I would think they are about as close to being counted among the twelve as any could be.
Click to expand...

Have you read "Teaching of Twelve" yet? please search at google.

juantoo3 said:
If you really do understand, then you also understand that Paul wrote on many levels, not just the milk of babes, but even very deep mysteries, that is if you are mature enough as you say.
Click to expand...

One example, Paul wrote a letter to church of Galatian because of they'd lost their way in Christianity. Why do you think he wrote it for you either? Are you lose the way either? like galatians?

For me without bible, every christian could never grow up spiritualy but bible it self just only a book, it's not worthy to compare to my Father. Bible only teach what is outside, my Father teach what is inside.
 
enton said:
The christianity of people being led by the Holy Spirit is and can always persist but it does not mean you are to think hypothetically to omit the epistles of Paul of any epistles in the New Testament: may they be of Peter, Jude, James, John or Paul. The teachings of St. Paul is of course the teachings of Jesus Christ. Do you remember when Christ prayed about his flock when He`ll depart?
Click to expand...
I believe Paul explained in more detail about what Christ meant by being "born again".

Paul also made the distinction between the first man Adam [genesis] and last Adam Christ. If Adam was the first man, and Christ was the second/last Adam, who is inbetween?

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

1 Peter 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,

Hard teaching indeed.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive........45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living soul." The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit.
 
The following is one view, and is hardly meant to say the last word:

Rome


Has anyone wondered why the supposed center of Christianity, from the fourth century to the sixteenth, has been in Rome, of all places? The "Roman Catholic" church is a contradiction in terms. What else was both "Roman" and "catholic"? The Empire, of course!

A guy named Jeshua shows up sometime around 30 CE (I dunno what this is in the Jewish calendar). He mostly hangs around an out-of-the-way province in a corner of the Empire. He gathers around himself some teenaged thugs—dagger-wielders and sword-carriers. The Romans, for some reason, perceive him as an enemy and execute him in an excruciating (literally), humiliating way.

But his followers continue to practice his brand of Judaism in both Galilee and in Jerusalem. But soon they find their movement being taken over by an epileptic Pharisee who wants to broaden the movement to his fellow citizens of Rome. Now, some Jews (eg, Josephus) as well as some "Xtians", (e.g., Saul/Paul), begin to toady toward Rome. But the Xtians are much better at it, and in a couple of centuries – after some unpleasantness -- they find themselves in control of the Empire! Now, they are in a position not only to persecute Jews, but also Pagans and "heretics." Wow! God must be really smiling on their enterprise!

Meanwhile, back in Palestine in the first century..... James and his followers, the Ebionites, etc., who continue to worship in synagogues find themselves outmaneuvered and outgunned by the Paulists. All they have going for them is that they actually knew Jeshua—James as his own brother. But Paul, an enthusiast who never knew Jeshua, knows somebody more powerful, a figure he calls "Christ Jesus" who has appeared to him in a vision.. Being an assiduous letter-writer, and an indefatigable travelling administrator, Paul sets up his "church" (ekklesia) far and wide.

The Jamesians (Jacobites) go into underground mode, particularly after the smashing of the Temple in 70. (James himself had been executed in 62) The canonical "gospels" are now written (actually, given their final edit) in the light of Paul's letters and influence, so they are anti-Jewish, pro-Roman, and feature a Jeshua who has become Christ Jesus. The Jamesians attempt to preserve their own traditions in things like THE GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES and perhaps the Gnostic GOSPEL OF THOMAS. The latter, for example, has the following exchange:

THE DISCIPLES (to Josh): "After you are gone, who will be great over us?"

JESHUA: "In the place where you are to go, go to James the Just for whose sake Heaven and Earth came into existence." (!!!)

Hmmmm. No Peter. No Simon. No Cephas. (Gradually, Paul seems to have won "Cephas"—Peter—over to his side)

We all know that the most commonly accepted version of history is usually written by the victors. And the 3rd-4th century historian (and bishop to Constantine) Eusebius, tells us that the Temple was destroyed as a punishment for the Jews' rejection of Josh. Neat move! Now, not only are the Jews demonized, but the Romans are seen as doing God's will.

And so we were on our merry way, with pronunciamentos from Christ's Vicar on Earth in the center of Roman pomp and power. This Vicar speaking for an itinerant Galilean rabbi.

Tacitus ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top