Christianity minus Paul

Kind Regards, Jeannot.

Is this not identical to the post you posted earlier, that was moved to the comparative board, to which you have yet to respond to my reply?

http://www.comparative-religion.com...thread-pauline-detraction-5123.html#post61676

If you will not respond there, what makes me think you will respond here? Is this to stir up the pot?

Have you nothing original to add? Is this a cut and paste of an old work of your own? Or are you borrowing it from somebody else, without permission perhaps?
 
juantoo3 said:
Kind Regards, Jeannot.

Is this not identical to the post you posted earlier, that was moved to the comparative board, to which you have yet to respond to my reply?

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/comparative-studies/from-babylon-thread-pauline-detraction-5123.html#post61676

If you will not respond there, what makes me think you will respond here? Is this to stir up the pot?

Have you nothing original to add? Is this a cut and paste of an old work of your own? Or are you borrowing it from somebody else, without permission perhaps?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Juantoo, I didn't find your response till a couple of weeks later, and at that time, the string appeared to be dead.

Let me here just say that I don't reject Paul--I meant it when I said that that post was glib. ("a poor thing, but my own') There is much of value in Paul--in fact, most of Paul. Nor do I think Paul departed from Jesus' message, but he did follow it in his own way. I just don't think that has to be everyone's way.

Paul was a gifted letter-writer and administrator. But sometimes he bent over backward in his effort to maintain that Christains were free of the Law. In doing so he stressed the idea of faith--to the point where Martin Luther went overboard with the idea, and held that it was faith alone which saved. Paul never said this, of course.

Even in Romans, Paul says, "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law. . . . You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (13:8ff)--quoting both Jesus and Leviticus. And of course in his famous encomium on Love in 1 Cor 13, he says that love trumps faith.

There were those who had different emphases than Paul. James, for example, draws the exact opposite conclusion from the Abraham story, saying that Abraham exemplifies the fruit of works. And then there were the Ebionites, many of whom rejected Paul, apprently regarding him as too Gnostic.

I believe that Paul has many valid emphases, but Jesus is the primary teacher.
 
RubySera_Martin said:
What would Christianity be without Paul? Very interesting thought. Maybe some of the writings that were rejected for the NT would have been accepted. I have no suggestions; it's just a thought.
Click to expand...

It would still be "Christianity". Paul is not Jesus. He (Jesus), did not need Apostles nor "Disciples". His message would have still come out. Paul simply made it easier...;)

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
It would still be "Christianity". Paul is not Jesus. He (Jesus), did not need Apostles nor "Disciples". His message would have still come out. Paul simply made it easier...;)

v/r

Q
Click to expand...

But what if the rejected writings Ruby referred to included the Gospel of Thomas, or that of the Ebionites?
 
I believe that Paul has many valid emphases, but Jesus is the primary teacher.

But was not Jesus' life a total act of faith?
John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"

This is the triumph of faith, because in the end we are called to lay down our lives for God, who gives it back ... this is Resurrection.

Matthew 10:39:
"He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."

John 1:12:
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name."

Luther, of course, went too far, but that's not the fault of the Apostles, nor Augustine, on whom he based much of his theology.

And without Paul, Christianity might well have devolved into another Jewish Apocalyptic Cult.

Remember that Paul argued with Peter, and won, when the Jerusalem Christians wanted to hold themselves apart from, and superior to, the gentile church, and refused to eat with them. He also won on the point of circumcision.

Jerusalem wanted to keep Christ for themselves - even Peter wa staggered, as was the community, by the conversion of Cornelius.

So even within the lifetime of the Apostles themselves, Paul was shown to be right, and to be leading the way, which was why his letters became teaching texts even in his own lifetime.

Paul gave Christianity the metaphysical and eschatalogical dimension which had been overshadowed by the physical presence of Jesus among the Apostles.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
I believe that Paul has many valid emphases, but Jesus is the primary teacher.

But was not Jesus' life a total act of faith?
John 15:13 "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"

This is the triumph of faith, because in the end we are called to lay down our lives for God, who gives it back ... this is Resurrection.

Matthew 10:39:
"He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."

John 1:12:
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name."

Luther, of course, went too far, but that's not the fault of the Apostles, nor Augustine, on whom he based much of his theology.

And without Paul, Christianity might well have devolved into another Jewish Apocalyptic Cult.

Remember that Paul argued with Peter, and won, when the Jerusalem Christians wanted to hold themselves apart from, and superior to, the gentile church, and refused to eat with them. He also won on the point of circumcision.

Jerusalem wanted to keep Christ for themselves - even Peter wa staggered, as was the community, by the conversion of Cornelius.

So even within the lifetime of the Apostles themselves, Paul was shown to be right, and to be leading the way, which was why his letters became teaching texts even in his own lifetime.

Paul gave Christianity the metaphysical and eschatalogical dimension which had been overshadowed by the physical presence of Jesus among the Apostles.

Thomas
Click to expand...

Did Paul "win" or did he prevail? I think the latter.

Basically, tho, I think Paul and Jesus are in agreement on what counts--the "Duologue,"--First the Shema Yisrael; "Love the Lord with all your heart, etc, and your neighbor as yourself. Even in Romans, Paul says that he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law. (Romans 13)

And even tho Paul harped on faith, he yet said that love trumps faith--"the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor)
 
Did Paul "win" or did he prevail? I think the latter.

I think Christ prevailed.
 
Kindest Regards, Jeannot!

Jeannot said:
But what if the rejected writings Ruby referred to included the Gospel of Thomas, or that of the Ebionites?
Click to expand...
Two thoughts immediately spring to mind:

Jesus foretold of the imminent destruction of the Temple, which occurred what? about 30 years later. Paul's ministry took him beyond the local "clan and clique" into the greater known world.

And that the Ebionites, Essenes and other "sectarian" offshoots of Judaism were doomed politically from and by the same powers that destroyed the Temple.

A point that seems lost in this argument of "why were these texts not included," is that these texts were sectarian and regional / clannish, intended for a local audience. And those local audiences were targeted for dispersal / destruction by the Roman political machine, long before the time of Constantine. After the Bar Kochba revolt, anything remotely Jewish was banned from Palestine, and to a lesser extent from the Empire. This includes these lesser texts that stemmed from obscure sects (cults?) It is only when these texts are found outside of the Empire (Nag Hamadi), or have some updated (to the era of Constantine) interpretation (Arius, Gnosticism), that we have any inkling of their existence.

I would add, that it is a wonder Pauline Christianity managed to survive at all. That in itself speaks volumes to me.
 
juantoo3 said:
Kindest Regards, Jeannot!


Two thoughts immediately spring to mind:

Jesus foretold of the imminent destruction of the Temple, which occurred what? about 30 years later. Paul's ministry took him beyond the local "clan and clique" into the greater known world.

And that the Ebionites, Essenes and other "sectarian" offshoots of Judaism were doomed politically from and by the same powers that destroyed the Temple.

A point that seems lost in this argument of "why were these texts not included," is that these texts were sectarian and regional / clannish, intended for a local audience. And those local audiences were targeted for dispersal / destruction by the Roman political machine, long before the time of Constantine. After the Bar Kochba revolt, anything remotely Jewish was banned from Palestine, and to a lesser extent from the Empire. This includes these lesser texts that stemmed from obscure sects (cults?) It is only when these texts are found outside of the Empire (Nag Hamadi), or have some updated (to the era of Constantine) interpretation (Arius, Gnosticism), that we have any inkling of their existence.

I would add, that it is a wonder Pauline Christianity managed to survive at all. That in itself speaks volumes to me.
Click to expand...

In fact, I wonder if Christianity would have survived at all w/o Paul. Of course, God seems to work through humans WITHOUT changing a person's basic disposition and temperament (Look at crazy Ezekiel ;)) So Paul, a strong personality, gives Christainity a certain spin--a Pauline spin. We may believe Paul, but we believe IN Jesus.

BTW, the Ebionites were still around in the 4th century, as Epiphanius and Eusebius attest. (And they've been revived today)

As far as the question of sectarianism goes, remember that Judaism regarded Christianity as a sect. And the Ebionites regarded the Paulinists as a sect. There are gaps in our knowledge of the Ebionites, but originally they seemed to be Aramaic-speaking followers of Jesus in Galilee. Thus, they seemed to be there "on the ground floor." Problem, Acts, upon which we have to depend for the earliest church history, totally neglects what was happening in Galilee, the scene of most of Jesus' activity.

When Eusebius talked to the later Ebionites, BTW, they were still in the apostolic manner recorded in Acts 4.
 
juantoo3 said:
I am curious, since I have seen the topic brought up from time to time, just what Christianity would look like minus the teachings of Paul. Frankly, Paul has many detractors, but I have yet to see any of them post what Christianity should be, in their view. What is left when we remove the teachings of Paul?
Click to expand...
Any Bible reader who attempts or tries to discredit any epistle in the New Testament is anti-Christ inasmuch as all the teachings we can read in the epistles of the Apostles are but teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. So, man's christianity even when he was baptized with the true baptism will cease and end if he begins to disregard the teachings of St. Paul, St. James, St. Jude, St. Peter and St. John respectively.:)
 
enton said:
Any Bible reader who attempts or tries to discredit any epistle in the New Testament is anti-Christ inasmuch as all the teachings we can read in the epistles of the Apostles are but teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. So, man's christianity even when he was baptized with the true baptism will cease and end if he begins to disregard the teachings of St. Paul, St. James, St. Jude, St. Peter and St. John respectively.:)
Click to expand...

Not quite correct. In fact Paul has on more that one occasion stated his words were his own and not that of God, or Jesus. And no where does the Bible say that a man loses his Christianity because he disagrees with something written by the Saints (unless you have biblical evidence to the contrary). On Paul's admission alone, it is presumed that man can disagree with St. Paul's take on certain issues (such as marriage and/or celibacy, for example).

In short, when Paul states something as his own opinion, he opens himself up to debate, and discreditation. Perhaps not for everything he writes, but for that which he writes as his own take on things.

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
Not quite correct. In fact Paul has on more that one occasion stated his words were his own and not that of God, or Jesus. And no where does the Bible say that a man loses his Christianity because he disagrees with something written by the Saints (unless you have biblical evidence to the contrary). On Paul's admission alone, it is presumed that man can disagree with St. Paul's take on certain issues (such as marriage and/or celibacy, for example).

In short, when Paul states something as his own opinion, he opens himself up to debate, and discreditation. Perhaps not for everything he writes, but for that which he writes as his own take on things.

v/r

Q
Click to expand...

Good point, I think. Yes, Paul says some things he writes are "from the Lord," and others are his own suggestions (like celibacy). At least, Paul is frank about this.

But may there be other cases in which we have to make a similar distinction? I'm not a Biblical literalist, so I think certain writers may be gving their own take on things. For example, Mark adds a parenthetical comment in 7:19, after Jesus has said that it was was came out a man that defiled him, and not what went in. Mark says "Thus he delcared all food clean."

Maybe, but that is not the only explanation.
 
Jeannot said:
Good point, I think. Yes, Paul says some things he writes are "from the Lord," and others are his own suggestions (like celibacy). At least, Paul is frank about this.

But may there be other cases in which we have to make a similar distinction? I'm not a Biblical literalist, so I think certain writers may be gving their own take on things. For example, Mark adds a parenthetical comment in 7:19, after Jesus has said that it was was came out a man that defiled him, and not what went in. Mark says "Thus he delcared all food clean."

Maybe, but that is not the only explanation.
Click to expand...

In a case such as this, we often find that one's parenthetical is backed up by God's own words (the dream of Peter with the bed sheets full of animals coming down from heaven, comes to mind). However, in the case of Paul, he specifically stated the words he wrote in certain areas were his own opinion. Hence the reader is not left to guess or "interpret". ;)

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
Not quite correct. In fact Paul has on more that one occasion stated his words were his own and not that of God, or Jesus. And no where does the Bible say that a man loses his Christianity because he disagrees with something written by the Saints (unless you have biblical evidence to the contrary). On Paul's admission alone, it is presumed that man can disagree with St. Paul's take on certain issues (such as marriage and/or celibacy, for example).

In short, when Paul states something as his own opinion, he opens himself up to debate, and discreditation. Perhaps not for everything he writes, but for that which he writes as his own take on things.

v/r

Q
Click to expand...
yeah, that's true! There are admonitions from Paul's personal knowledge being a christian. But it does not somehow invalidate what he advised. Like on marriage, Paul, being a single christian, advised fellow single christians to be alone, but because we (christians) are under the law of liberty, the law of faith, we have the right to marry in accordance to the will of God. Bear always in mind these verses:

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. II Peter 3:15-16

Yeah, a believer may lose his christianity:

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

How about those that shall not endure unto the end?

Remember that Sts. Peter and Paul talked about two "man":

I Peter 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

II Corinthians 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

So, I talked about all the teachings of the inner man of Paul.:)
 
juantoo3 said:
I am curious, since I have seen the topic brought up from time to time, just what Christianity would look like minus the teachings of Paul. Frankly, Paul has many detractors, but I have yet to see any of them post what Christianity should be, in their view. What is left when we remove the teachings of Paul?
Click to expand...
Dear juantoo3,

A great question. Unfortunately, that's hard to answer since Paul was given the ministry by the Holy Spirit specifically to preach to the Gentiles. His ministry was supported by both Peter and James who primarily shared Jesus to the Jewish people. Without Paul I can't image what would be the outreach to the Gentiles outside of the work of the Holy Spirit in the world.:eek:
 
juantoo3 said:
I am curious, since I have seen the topic brought up from time to time, just what Christianity would look like minus the teachings of Paul. Frankly, Paul has many detractors, but I have yet to see any of them post what Christianity should be, in their view. What is left when we remove the teachings of Paul?
Click to expand...

What's left is the teaching of Jesus, and Jesus never had to quote Paul's teaching to fulfill His mission.

If Jesus did not need to quote Paul, why would we?
 
juantoo3 said:
The first thing that comes to my mind, is that Christianity would not be carried to, nor have any relevence for, the goyim, the gentiles, the nations. What would be left of the New Testament would be directed soley and only to Messianic Jews.
Click to expand...



Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
 
Excaliburton said:
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Click to expand...

Read the next verse and look at the cross reference and you will see what Peter is talking about.

The problem I have with your interpretation of Scripture is not so much that it is different to mine, but that it ignores context, both immediate and global, and that it generalises without contextual authority.
 
Excaliburton said:
What's left is the teaching of Jesus, and Jesus never had to quote Paul's teaching to fulfill His mission.

If Jesus did not need to quote Paul, why would we?
Click to expand...

Because Paul set the ground rules. Even though the message of Jesus was out, the churches needed guidance (that is where Paul comes in). The churhes were squabbling or back sliding or a whole bevy of indiscretions and Paul became the "arbiter".

That is why we need Paul. And that is why Jesus placed people like Paul in positions of authority in order to keep the fledgling churches moving in the right direction.

v/r

Q
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top