Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

Legend,I'm not ignoring you.I'm having no problem matching Paul with Luke & John. This is no surprise as John is decades later than Paul's letters, and Luke was Paul's companion. (Please, no comments on differences between Acts & Galatians; those are there, but that's a different topic.)I'll probably at least get back to you on Luke shortly, since that's a synoptic Gospel, but Matthew & Mark require some thinking. I could throw together an argument already, but it wouldn't be a very honest one.For right now, though, let me throw out that I want to go against the argument that it's right to assume Jesus had a Jewish mindset on the issues we're discussing. First, I think the "Jewish mindset" has been asserted, but not referenced (which is okay at this point, because it's only been touched on). Second, I do not think it is safe to assume that Jesus had a Jewish mindset on things when you are trying to prove Paul is the originator of Christian beliefs; Paul says he got them from Jesus (admittedly, post-humously).So the issue, I think, is whether Matthew & Mark support your assertion that the idea of salvation by faith was not in Jesus' thoughts, as evidenced by his preaching in those two Gospels. That's what I'm trying to look at.As far as whether Paul's atonement view is new, I have to look at the much easier salvation by faith issue first. The atonement is doggone complicated issue, because just how Paul viewed the atonement is not a very settled issue except among those who've never studied it. "Atonement" is not a Pauline word, anyway. His death/life arguments are very Greek and very mystical, and they're difficult for Americans to grasp without addressing the arguments of this thread. They're more complicated with those arguments.Give me a couple days, though. We're having a sort of festival this weekend, and our lives run pretty busy, anyway.

Hi truthlover,thanks for the reply. Yes, this thread has the possibility to easily digress into other subjects, e.g the Acts & Galatians differences, like you said, or John vs synoptics, so I'll try to keep it relevant to the OP.BTW, I'm not trying to 'prove' that Paul had radically different ideas to Jesus, I don't think that can be conclusively done. I'm just putting forward my point of view, trying to look at it from as an objective angle as possible. Part of my doing so is the assumption that Jesus would have the Jewish concept of 'sacrifice to God' and -consequently- couldn't have seen himself in the way Paul presented him.Now, I can't present my view as a fact, but the scriptures tell the story of a man who attended the Jewish religious festivals (Passover - John 12.12; Mark 14.12-26, Tabernacles John 7.1-39) and attended the synagogue every sabbath (Luke 4.16). He said he didn't come to replace the Law, instead advocated people to keep the Law. He even argued that the crowds and his disciples should do as the scribes and Pharisees said (Matthew 23.3), "but not as they do"!.So, IMHO, it's a fair assumption to say that the twisted (by Jewish standards) idea of him as an atonement sacrifice could not have been what he thought and taught.Anyway, give it some thought and try to change my mind have a good festival!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I'm just now getting around to this thread so my comment is late. You've touched here on what some have developed into the mythicist postition that Paul was not talking about an earthly Jesus at all. Doherty's Jesus Puzzle website goes into this in great detail.I found Doherty's ideas fascinating but have some doubts because of a couple of mentions in Paul that seem earthly. The historist seem to have a slightly greater probability in their arguments. Still I'd be interested in what you think of Doherty or other mythicist postitions.lfen

I wasn't aware of Doherty's web site, thanks for pointing it out, I'm having a look right now.I'm -initially- reluctant to reject Jesus' historicity, as many religious myths are based on historical persons / events. My personal opinion is that the historical Jesus can only be hinted at in the synoptics and is nothing like Paul or even John make him out to be.Will post back on Doherty as soon as I've digested what he says.** EDIT for spelling / typosThis message has been edited by Legend, 05-25-2005 07:20 PM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Original sin:
Proverbs 20:9
'Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin"?'John 8:7
'"If any of you is without sin cast the first stone."'Atonement sacrifice:
Isaiah 53:4-5
'Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.'Salvation by faith:
John 3:16
'For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not persih but have eternal life.'Mark 16:16
'Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.'Paul seems to be in line with what Jesus taught and the scriptures to me.

That is much different than the christian concept of Original sin.Sin is not inherited, stained on the soul because of adam and eve.The quote from Isaiah is taken out of context,and is talking about the nation of Israel, not a man.This message has been edited by ramoss, 05-26-2005 10:17 AM

quote:

---

Paul seems to be in line with what Jesus taught and the scriptures to me.

---

Since John and Mark were written after Paul's ministry and the verse from Mark is considered a late addition, IMO the authors and editors were influenced by Paul's ministry; especially since the Jerusalem Church, with James as the leader, continued to uphold Jewish ways.As ramoss pointed out, your OT verses read in context do not deal with original sin or atonement sacrifice.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

It's true that John and Mark were written during Paul's ministry, but Mark did not get his information from Paul, he got his information from eye-witness sources (most likely Peter). Why would someone go to Paul for a qoute on Jesus? They might have been influenced by Paul's ministry, but that doesn't make any difference when you are writing a biographical account of somebody. I'm influenced by U2, does that mean if i make a biographical account of Elvis, that my information would be any different? Absolutely not. Also, John (the apostle and earlier disciple,'who Jesus loved') was an eye-witness account in himself. If Paul said anything remotely wrong, John, as well as the other eye-witnesses would have disputed Paul's teachings.Another thing, with James as the apparant leader of the church, and holding up Jewish ways, how does that affect the authors of the gospels? In Galatians 2, the early church pillars agreed that Paul and Barnabas go and preach to the Gentiles while they preach to the Jews. They readily agreed with Pauls teachings, and if Pauls teachings directly contradicted Jesus teachings (who they are going to eventually be martyred for), then they would not have accepted Paul.Also, the context by which ramoss pointed out is a context read from a Jewish standpoint, ones who do not believe the Messiah has come already, so they interpret it as Israel. Isaiah 53:1 was directly fulfilled by Jesus as described in John 12:38, and also Isaiah 53:4 was partly fulfilled by Jesus in Matthew 8:17. So if one was to truely read it in context it is easy to see that the verses was a direct prophesy of Jesus' ministry.

Well, since Isaiah is a Jewish scripture, and when read IN CONTEXT, is very specific about it refering to the nation of israel, your critizism is irrelavent.I mean, what good is a 'prophecy' if it can be read out of context after the fact?

quote:

---

but Mark did not get his information from Paul, he got his information from eye-witness sources (most likely Peter).

---

Where does the author state his sources?

quote:

---

Why would someone go to Paul for a qoute on Jesus?

---

I doubt if Paul was alive when the Book of Mark was written.

quote:

---

They might have been influenced by Paul's ministry, but that doesn't make any difference when you are writing a biographical account of somebody.

---

Sure it does. It depends on the purpose and the beliefs of the author.

quote:

---

Also, John (the apostle and earlier disciple,'who Jesus loved') was an eye-witness account in himself.

---

The book of John was written around 80-100AD and the name of the author is not mentioned in the book. Even in the book "Case for Christ" by Strobel, it is stated that the authors of the gospels are unknown. Since the author is unknown, we have no proof that the author was an eyewitness.

quote:

---

Another thing, with James as the apparant leader of the church, and holding up Jewish ways, how does that affect the authors of the gospels?

---

You said that Paul's teachings were not different than those of Jesus. Since the disciples (the men who were physically with Jesus) were still practicing Judaism and Paul's teachings seem to deviate from Judaism, then IMO Paul is not upholding the teachings of Jesus. IMO there was some contention between the Jerusalem Church and Paul.

quote:

---

Also, the context by which ramoss pointed out is a context read from a Jewish standpoint

---

How else does one read Jewish Scripture? (That's a rhetorical question)CONTEXT: 1. The explanatory words and ideas surrounding a particular word or statement in a discourse.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs.Isaiah's words were given for a specific audience and time. There is no indication that God intended otherwise.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 05-26-2005 04:08 PM

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Where does the author state his sources?The are many historical documents written by the early church which say that the book of Mark was written by John Mark. The best evidence comes from Papias (130 A.D.) who actually qoutes an earlier source saying Mark was a close associate of the apostle Peter, and that most of his accounts came from Peter.
Many biblical scholars agree that Mark who wrote the gospels is also the Mark as described in Acts who had a house in Jerusalem which was a meeting place for believers (Acts 12:12), he also accompanied Paul in his first missionary journey (Acts 13:5).'I doubt if Paul was alive when the Book of Mark was written'The date for which the gospel of Mark was written is uncertain at this point but more scholars agree that it was before the death of Peter (64 or 67 A.D.). The Paschal Chronicle assigns it to 40 A.D., the 'Chronicle' of Esubius says it was written in 'the third year of Cluadius' (43 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria pointed out that Peter was in Rome when Mark wrote the gospel. Some say it is clear it was written before 70 A.D. since there was no indication of the Temple in Jerusalem already being destroyed in the prediction noted in Mark 13:2. The gospel, to most scholars, find that it was written between the dates of 50 A.D. and 67 A.D.
It is concluded that Paul died under the reign of Nero and the persecution which preceded then. Nero was Emperor from 54-68 A.D., thus Paul had to have died within that timeframe, therefore Paul was alive during the time which the gospel of Mark was written.'Sure it does. It depends on the purpose and the beliefs of the author.'Not when the main focus on your beliefs reflect that of honesty and truth, that the man many of the disciples were martyred for called himself 'The way, the truth, and the life.' These men were called to be honest and they had other that forced them to be accountable. They constantly spoke of the good news of Jesus Christ, never the good news of Paul.'The book of John was written around 80-100AD and the name of the author is not mentioned in the book. Even in the book "Case for Christ" by Strobel, it is stated that the authors of the gospels are unknown. Since the author is unknown, we have no proof that the author was an eyewitness.'The evidence given by the early ecclesiastical authors, whose reference to questions of authorship is but incidental, agrees with that of the above mentioned sources. St. Dionysius of Alexandria, it is true, sought for a different author for the Apocalypse, owing to the special difficulties which were being then urged by the Millennarianists in Egypt; but he always took for granted as an undoubted fact that the Apostle John was the author of the Fourth Gospel. Equally clear is the testimony of Origen. He knew from the tradition of the Church that John was the last of the Evangelists to compose his Gospel, and at least a great portion of his commentary on the Gospel of John, in which he everywhere makes clear his conviction of the Apostolic origin of the work has come down to us. Origen's teacher, Clement of Alexandria, relates as " the tradition of the old presbyters", that the Apostle John, the last of the Evangelists, "filled with the Holy Ghost, had written a spiritual Gospel".Of still greater importance is the testimony of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, linked immediately with the Apostolic Age as he is, through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John. The native country of Irenaeus (Asia Minor) and the scene of his subsequent ministry (Gaul) render him a witness of the Faith in both the Eastern and the Western Church. He cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the Fourth Gospel, often with the remark, "as John, the disciple of the Lord, says". In speaking of the composition of the Four Gospels, he says of the last: " Later John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia". As here, so also in the other texts it is clear that by "John, the disciple of the Lord," he means none other than the Apostle John.I have to agree that the age of the book comes close to 100 A.D. but rhe old age of the apostle could be explained in the John 21:23, could not also.'You said that Paul's teachings were not different than those of Jesus. Since the disciples (the men who were physically with Jesus) were still practicing Judaism and Paul's teachings seem to deviate from Judaism, then IMO Paul is not upholding the teachings of Jesus. IMO there was some contention between the Jerusalem Church and Paul.'Paul's teachings did not deviate that of Jesus teaching, but actually re-enforced his teaching to a greater degree. Jesus followed the Jewish laws, he even said he came to fulfill them. The difference between the Jewish belief and the Christian belief is Jesus Christ, and Paul supported the teachings of Jesus Christ, as well as the disciples, therefore, they were all on the same track.'How else does one read Jewish Scripture? (That's a rhetorical question)
CONTEXT: 1. The explanatory words and ideas surrounding a particular word or statement in a discourse.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs.
Isaiah's words were given for a specific audience and time. There is no indication that God intended otherwise.'Isaiah's word were prophetic, therefore the specific date and time cannot be told until the event has already happened. Jewish beliefs say that the Messiah hasn't come yet, therefore they read it as an affliction to Israel. Christian belief sees it as the Messiah has come, that Jesus is him, and since Jesus fulfills the prophesies in Isaiah 53, every one of them, it quite safe for Christians to interpret it as a prophesy of Jesus.

The Jewish belief does not have Isaiah being about the messiah. It is about the nation of Isreal, if you read it in context. It is, after all, written in the past tense, so the events as poetically described by the writer of Isaiah 40-59 had already occured.

The author of Mark does not identify himself nor does he state who his sources are.

quote:

---

The best evidence comes from Papias (130 A.D.) who actually qoutes an earlier source saying Mark was a close associate of the apostle Peter, and that most of his accounts came from Peter.

---

So we have Papias an obscure bishop of Hierapolis whose five volume treatise called An Exposition of the Lord's Reports no longer exists. IOW we can't verify what the original author wrote.What is left of his work are fragments within the writings of Irenaeus. They are no longer available within the author's context.So Papias is repeating what John the Presbyter said. Unfortunately the fragment doesn't state that Papias was talking about the Book of Mark that we have today and have no idea who John the Presbyter was. A man named Mark may very well have written a journal or report for Peter. The fragment doesn't identify what Mark wrote to be an organized piece of work. Plus the book of Mark has some cultural problems for someone who was supposedly a resident of the area.

quote:

---

Some say it is clear it was written before 70 A.D. since there was no indication of the Temple in Jerusalem already being destroyed in the prediction noted in Mark 13:2.

---

And some say it isn't.

quote:

---

It is concluded that Paul died under the reign of Nero and the persecution which preceded then. Nero was Emperor from 54-68 A.D., thus Paul had to have died within that timeframe, therefore Paul was alive during the time which the gospel of Mark was written.

---

According to Irenaeus, Mark didn't pass on his writings until after Paul and Peter died in Rome. From what I have read Christian tradition holds that Peter and Paul were in Rome together and both perished there during the Neronian persecution of Christians around 64 to 67 CE. Now it would be nice to believe that Mark sat right down and organized his writings, but IMO the odds are against it with all the turmoil after Nero's rampage and then there's the unrest leading to the destruction of the temple. Besides Irenaeus didn't say it was an organized book.So still, IMO, Paul was probably not alive when the Book of Mark, as we know it, was written.Mark the interpreter handed down what he wrote about the teachings of Peter. Peter was with Paul. More probability of Pauline influence if it was the same Mark.I'll have to address the rest later.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 05-27-2005 06:22 AM

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Of still greater importance is the testimony of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, linked immediately with the Apostolic Age as he is, through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John.

---

Again you have Irenaeus endorsing 2nd hand information.According to Irenaeus, Papias was "a hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp."But Papias states otherwise: Irenaeus is losing his reliability.If you have other testimony, please quote them or link to them.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Isaiah's word were prophetic, therefore the specific date and time cannot be told until the event has already happened. Jewish beliefs say that the Messiah hasn't come yet, therefore they read it as an affliction to Israel. Christian belief sees it as the Messiah has come, that Jesus is him, and since Jesus fulfills the prophesies in Isaiah 53, every one of them, it quite safe for Christians to interpret it as a prophesy of Jesus.

---

I think there is a thread open which is a better outlet for this discussion. Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?Unless you can show that God intended for the words of the prophets to have double meaning, then Jesus did not fulfill Isaiah 53 which is written in past tense as ramoss pointed out. Show that God supports double fulfillment of the prophets' words.If you can show that, jump on the other thread and go for it.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France