Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

To Admins: this one is probably for Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy.I wish to contest that Paul of Tarsus -and not Jesus of Nazareth- is the true founder of Christianity. Modern orthodox Christianity is based on Paul's doctrines and their subsequent interpretation and expansion. Paul introduced the concepts of:

1. The original sin.
   "as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all man, because all sinned... "(Rom 5:12)
   ​
   and punishment of all for the original sin
   "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam... " ( Rom 5:14)
   ​
2. the atonement sacrifice
   ​
   "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice...at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:25-26)
   ​
   "You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for our sins. " (Rom 5:6-8)
   ​
3. salvation by faith, instead of salvation by works
   (Gal 2:16, Gal 3:11, Rom 3:28). In contrast Jesus taught that whoever practices the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.(Mat 5:17-20).

Paul was a man who -by his own admission- had never met Jesus but was converted by a vision. He taught doctrines that Jesus never did and some that Jesus directly contradicted.My questions to Christians (or should I say Paulians !?) are:A) on what authority was Paul allowed to extend / replace Jesus teachings and the Jewish traditions / interpretations ?B) Why is Paul's divine revelation accepted as such, while accounts of divine revelation by others are rejected off-hand ?. Joseph Smith is a good example, his account is more recent and better authenticated than Paul's. How can you reject mr Smith's teachings but happily accept Paul's ?C) What is the most plausible explanation for an orthodox Jew, who claimed he had fought against the new Jesus sect fearing that it represented a danger to Jewish orthodoxy, to renounce it practically overnight and become its cornerstone ?! And once he does, why does he avoid revealing his insight to his fellow Jews, who still shared the 'errors' he now became aware of and who -one would think- would seem the first to be entitled to his new revelation?This message has been edited by Legend, 04-20-2005 05:50 PM

i agree with this statement, but i think i'll sit out until someone posts something i can object to.also, i wish to contribute the fact that according to the gospel of matthew, peter, not paul was supposed to be head the jesus's church.

quote:

---

also, i wish to contribute the fact that according to the gospel of matthew, peter, not paul was supposed to be head the jesus's church.

---

good point, yet Paul berates Peter over his reluctance to share a meal with gentile Christians (Gal. 2:11-13). On what authority can he belittle the actions of one Jesus' closest disciples ?

---

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

i dunno. i think jesus probably would have eaten with the gentiles. he seemed rather cool about dietary prohibitions and customs, and to my knowledge there's no law about eating in the presence of non-jews.but it seems to be part of paul's long rant of "faith vs works" which basically states that belief is everything, judaism be damned. don't follow the law, don't get circumcised, etc, because that makes salvation meaningless, and then you're bound to that law.paul doesn't seem to have a grasp on christ's message here, let alone that of judaism.

---

אָרַח

I would agree that a case could be made for Paul being the founder of Christianity. Jesus initially came in order to lead Israel into the Messianic kingdom. The time was not yet here for God to open the invitation to the non-jews. The saints of past ages were not all saved by believing the same things, for God did not reveal the same things to them all. The Jews had to first attempt--and fail--to keep all of the laws perfectly. When God says, "Offer an animal in sacrifice and I will accept you," what will our faith do? Faith will offer an animal in sacrifice, of course. Abel did this and was accepted, not because the blood of beasts can take away sins, but because he approached God in God's way. This is "the obedience of faith.""But the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED THE COUNSEL OF GOD AGAINST THEMSELVES, BEING NOT BAPTIZED OF HIM" (Luke 7:30). There are many ways of interpreting the Bible, and I prefer dispensationalism.

quote:

---

The Jews had to first attempt--and fail--to keep all of the laws perfectly.

---

According to whom?What does God expect Christians to do perfectly?Even though Christians are supposedly not under the law, they have the same problem today as the Jewish teachers did then. So are Christians allowed to have the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do presentation, but the Jews weren't?

---

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

this is a gross misunderstanding, of the jewish faith. heck, i'll even use the bible to refute it, just for kicks.

quote:

---

Psa 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

---

sacrifices and obedience to the law is not what the lord requires. it's part of an agreement between god and his people. jews obey the law because it's their duty, and their way of showing respect to lord. jews used to offer sacrifices as part of an atonement ritual. it was not required of them, but rather it was an OFFERING. they offered it. not had it required of them.the purpose of sacrifice was two fold:1. it made the offerer feel better. by giving up something, they acknowledged their wrong, and gave up something that would "make up" for it. how does this compare to the christian process? do we do anything that makes us feel even with god again? or do we just guilt ourselves in cycles?2. it fed the levites. the people who worked the tabernacle did nothing else. they didn't farm, or hunt, or have flocks of sheep. sacrifices kept them alive. it is quite possibly the earliest socialist system.jews today do not offer sacrifice. they have a different method of atonement. the sacrifice is not the important part of the ritual, and it can be done without. and this is why when paul says "the wages of sin are death" i know he's lying. god does not require sacrifices. they are a gift from israel to god.similarly, there are offerings of thanksgiving. see, the idea that jes are just about the rules is a little silly. while they are very careful to follow them, the focus is the right mind set and having your heart in the right place. this is the message jesus taught -- he was trying to get judaism back on track. this is correct, but only sort of. what moses was given was a covenant. the israelites entered into an agreement with god during the exodus. god rescues them from egypt, and they owe him one.by "the law" john probably means the torah (which literally means "the law"). paul, however, seems to be misreading that. there's lots of commandments from god to his children prior to moses. in fact, the covenant of circumcision dates to abraham. that, in some respects, is a law. as much as the ten commandments are. jews did not reject that covenant with god when moses gave them a new one.paul's logic is faulty, and makes me suspect that he was not jewish at all, as i alluded earlier. otherwise, he'd know the difference between "law" and "the law." quite.actually, my bible's divided into two more sections than yours is. not only do i have an "old" and "new" testament, but my "old" one is divided into torah (law of mesos), nevi'im (prophets), and ketuvim (writings). the new testament should be divided into gospels, epistles, and revelation. (acts being the second half of luke, and in "gospels")i think it'd serve as a good reminder to people that these things were written by different people, at different times, and about different stuff. it's not ONE book, but a collection of many books.

---

אָרַח

Jesus said the following:
1) "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."2) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."Paul wrote the following:
1) "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."Both Jesus and Paul taught faith in Jesus and repentance.

neither of those first two say anything about laws or repentance or righteousnss. the speak of a gift from god. (and i seriously doubt jesus taught faith in himself, but the validity of john would be another thread)

---

אָרַח

I want to take the position that Paul's writings have been made so popular and interpreted so oddly in the western world that it's very difficult for a westerner to know what Paul taught at all.The writings of the church fathers, beginning from the end of the New Testament era, up till the late 3rd century, show a completely different view of Paul's theology than what's been taught since Luther and the Reformation.Thus, I propose that while there are drastic differences between what Protestants and their offshoots say Paul taught and what they say Jesus taught, the actual differences between what Jesus and Paul taught are much smaller.After all, all of what we have written about Jesus' teachings were written during the time of Paul's influence, so even from the viewpoint of an unbeliever, why would there be large differences? That everyone sinned and that the first sinner was Adam is not new to Paul. In John 2, it is said that Jesus did not commit himself to those that were believing in his miracles, because he knew what was in man. What is that? Nothing good is being referred to here, I assure you. He wouldn't commit himself to them.In Romans 3, Paul pulled passage after passage from the Psalms about people ("there is none good, no, not one"). The idea of people needing redemption, beginning with Adam, is hardly a new idea.It can be argued that the OT makes allowances for some good people, even in Ps 14 and Ps 53, where the "none good, no, not one" statement is found. However, so does Paul. Romans 2 mentions both good and bad people, which is not uncommon in Paul's letters. He's been very misrepresented for a number of centuries, though. Punishment of all is also misleading. Paul says that death reigned over people from Adam to Moses. Indeed, he teaches that all are dead in sins apart from Christ (Eph 2). However, he does not say that all are punished. Those that obey their conscience are rewarded, he says in Romans 1. This is no different than the OT, and it is no different than Jesus. He introduced this? That's arguable, isn't it? Admittedly, John's Gospel was written after Paul's letters, but it does mention the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Even if Paul mentions Christ as atonement prior to John, how do you know he was the first? Matthew 16:20-22 may not directly state an atonement, but it definitely suggests one, saying that the Christ MUST suffer and die and be raised.Now, if by atonement, you mean the "Christ bore the punishment for your sins in your place," then Paul's surely not guilty there. I believe most scholars credit that doctrine to St. Anselm, at least 1000 years after Paul, not to Paul, nor even to any of the church fathers. It's very sad that Paul has to be held in disregard for Luther's fantastical nonsense. Yes, Paul taught salvation by faith; by a faith that produced good works which resulted in immortality. Read Rom 2:5-7 and then read Rom 6. Faith is what brings grace, and grace is what comes so that "sin has no more power over you" (Rom 6:14).It is Paul who said, "God will repay eternal life to those who pursue it by patiently continuing to do good."Anyone who studies soteriology would do well not to apply John's rather metaphysical view of eternal life as a current possession of the disciple--a divine life if you will--to Paul, who meant living forever by eternal life. Paul always speaks of eternal life as a future thing to be gained as a reward for a holy life (achieved by the deliverance wrought by faith), while it is John, and John alone, who speaks of it as a current possession of the disciple.Ok, on to the questions: Power. Jesus taught those who would follow him to listen to prophets/teachers who produced good fruit. Paul produced awesome churches, and he had miraculous powers. For me, it's fruit. I see Paul's teachings working every day. I can show you a society, united in a love that is openly marveled at by those who experience it.If the Mormons could still produce the same thing, I'd pay some attention to Joseph Smith. Instead, the two Mormons that I still am in contact with who have earned my deep respect have told me that their goal is to produce the kind of society I live in. They tell me that 170 years ago, the Mormons had that love and unity, too. I don't know whether that's true, but they don't have it now, and they believe some things that are antithetical to the religion I live every day.For the average Christian, though, I have an interesting answer to your question. My answer is that Paul's teachings have been around longer, so more people are raised with them, while Smith's have been around a much shorter time, so less follow them. Nonetheless, most Christian children will choose some corruption of Paul, and almost all Mormon children will choose Joseph Smith. He met Christ on the road to Damascus, was blinded by him and sent to the marvelous society of love Christ had created in Damascus. There a citizen of that new society healed his blindness and cleansed Paul's soul in the waters of baptism.That's my thought on it, anyway. :-) I understand that Paul claimed he went first to the Jews, but they rejected his message. However, he was told by Jesus, he said, to go to the Gentiles. He did say, however, that his greatest hope was that his astounding success among the Gentiles would spur the Jews to jealousy so that they might be saved. He claimed that longing was so strong, that he would be willing to be severed from Christ himself if that would save them.

actually, it is. it's just that nobody is perfect. well, except:

quote:

---

Gen 6:9 These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.

---

quote:

---

1Ki 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, [that] his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as [was] the heart of David his father.

---

quote:

---

1Ki 15:14 But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the LORD all his days.

​

2Ch 15:17 But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.

---

quote:

---

1Ch 12:38 All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel [were] of one heart to make David king.

---

quote:

---

1Ch 29:9 Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the LORD: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy.

---

quote:

---

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

​

Job 2:3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

---

etc.note that david is called perfect, even after sinning with bathsheba. curious, huh? who redeemed him?you see, the jewish concept of "original sin" is that people are human beings. they make mistakes. no one is exempt from making mistakes. and god is more than capable (and willing!) to forgive men for their mistakes. god made us, and understands us.this is not the philosophy that paul speaks of, is it? when paul quotes that "none that doeth good, no not one" he's quoting psalm 53. psalm 14/53 is a lament over the captivity of israel and judah. it's echoing the words of the the prophets at the time, who argued that israel and judah had broken their end of he covenant with god, and god was punishing them. the salvation psalm 14/53 calls for is the return from captivity. paul is quoting WAY out of context. that we have in the bible, anyways. the idea of christ as sacrifice for atonement of sins doesn't actually make sense in light of jewish customs. why would god need to sacrifice his son to himself? what are we giving up? how does this atone for anything? why can't god just say "i forgive you, now behave." and it doesn't take into account that simple fact that sacrifices are not required, they are OFFERED. (also, he was not executed according to levitical standards)the "lamb" bit is especially referring to this:

quote:

---

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

---

this of course is abraham's lie to isaac. he's really going up that mountain to kill him. he just doesn't have the heart to tell him that. in this case, abraham's offering was not a sacrifice to atone for sins, but a test of faith. whether it was faith that god would save his son, or faith that god knows what he's doing, or faith that god would actually provide another offering himself, i don't know. i've even heard suggestions that it was a test of faith that abraham FAILED. one view says he was supposed to object, because god had already promised him a great nation and isaac was his only shot, but abraham thought isaac was actually abimalech's son, not his. and so didn't care if he killed him.either way, god was being pret-ty tricky if you ask me. but let's run with the metaphor. if it was a test of faith for abraham, and jesus is "the lamb of god" that will be provided, it seems that this is just a test of faith for us as well. and not atoning for sins. that would be how the jews would have understood that statement, anyways. while i agree that this is what paul probably meant, it's not a jewish attitude. jews are not saved by faith. they're not saved by works, either. they're just plain not saved. they're god's chosen people. god likes them.and they're that way because they're jewish. not because the believe or disbelieve. or because they follow the law and kill something when they goof up. they try to follow the law out of respect and duty and love. paul is blatantly misrepresenting the jewish faith.heck, what is there to be saved FROM? god? god's saving us from god? by that token, we should follow bill gates. or george w bush. or the new pope. or osama bin laden. (i do believe those people have all been called "the antichrist" at some point)let's discuss power, shall we? what power did jesus have? politically, i mean. he did some great party tricks, raised the dead and so forth, i know. but that's kind of a morning warm up for god, wouldn't you say?when moses is going against pharoah in exodus, the magicians sure keep up with him pretty well. until the plagues at least. but should we believe someone because they claim to speak for yahweh, and can do some cool party tricks? should we believe them because a lot of other people believe them?lots of people believed pharoahs magicians, didn't they? pharoah was sure satisfied. but it's nothing compared to the might of god. paul made a lot of churches, yes. but we should believe in this little man from galilea, who nobody heared, and lost his fight. they killed him. he didn't excercise his power, did he? he spoke of truth, and love, and understanding. compassion. not power.power is the antithesis of christianity. yeah, i agree. paul is kind of fruity. any one wanna get a side topic going about paul's repressed homosexuality? i've also seen paul's teachings destroy people i've loved. i've seen his work inspire guilt and fear, and force people -- including myself -- into masochistic cycles of guilt and depression followed by maniacal fervor that we can never live up. might not have been what he meant, but it's certain a product of the way his epistles are taught.also, christian teenagers are something like 6 times more likely to engage in premarital anal and oral sex than athiests. (i love that statistic...) rules create taboos. taboos create excitement. and people try to get around the rules. i think i'm gonna address a comment to person who brought it up, because i have some reasons for rejecting his work too. dunno how much it would matter, since i also reject paul. according to the story, anyways. but like i said, his supposed jewish origins are very suspect. the rest of the story is too. actually, first he persecuted jews. then after he found christ... he persecuted jews. curious.

---

אָרַח

missed this the first time around. couple of points.

1. paul's letters are letters, not divine revelation. they're the "dear abby" of the early christian church. a church would write him with questions and problems, and he'd give his advice in return.
   ​
2. joseph smith's story and text is not any better authenticated that paul's. paul, we're at least pretty sure, wrote all of the pauline epistles. this seems to have been the same paul in acts. as for the validity of his opinions... well. however, they're stories and historical background are about equally as suspicious, yes.

• smith's work can be shown quite easily to be outright fraud:
  ​
• there are signed witness statements, sure. but i've seen rubbings of one his plates, and his something on the order of a dozen characters on it. not in heiroglyphs. in coptic. these things had at most a few words each on them? where did the get the text? these plates are of course nowhere to be found: there is NO original text.
  ​
• portions of the text of the "older" manuscripts contain direct copies of kjv text. this would be next to impossible to be accurate, considering the people who wrote them supposedly left jerusalem before the copied section was ever written (a verse in isaiah, for instance). on top of that, for something to maintain EXACT wording, even after going through an intermediate language (coptic) is highly unlikely. scratch that. it's impossible. as well as it being 200 years out of date.
  ​
• joseph smith claims to have translated by divine inspiration. he doesn't know hebrew, greek, or egyptian.
  ​
• although he claims to have them checked with the best translators, one of the non-plate books turned out to be some pages from the egyptian book of the dead. these are apparently available on the black market in egypt from grave robbers.
  ​
• lds churches use a revised old and new testament. which is basically word for word the kjv text, with the occasional extra verse inserting mormon doctrines. these additions cannot be found in any existing manuscript, anywhere.
  ​
• the text contains many, many anachronisms. we can use anachronisms to date texts. for instance, we know genesis was written after about 600 bc, due to mentions of chaldeans, kings, camels, and the babylonian influence. smith writes of horses in america (post 1400's!), jeremiah's imprisonment, coinage, steel, etc.
  ​
• i seem to recall smith using some names for the wrong gender, and using names that are distinctly not of hebrew origin

the point is that it's rather clear that joseph smith just plain made stuff up. so while paul probably did too, as his doctrines conflict with those of jesus and moses, we at least have some sense of authenticity to paul. we know they're written at about the right period of time, and we have the (somewhat) original greek texts, where as for the BoM we just have a big fat nothing. so there could, conceivably be a reason to reject smith, and accept paul.although i think if we want to continue this discussion of smith, we should propose another thread for it, and keep this one to paul. i just wanted to contrast the differences.

---

אָרַח

Yes, it is. Did you not catch that was my point in my post?It's very hard for people to even conceive of the concept that Paul didn't teach what Martin Luther says he taught.Now, if you mean that Paul teaches a stricter morality than the ancient Jews and addresses eternal reward and punishment while the ancient Jews didn't, then that's true, but that's not new to Paul. Y'shua's pretty clear about drawing a stricter line (Matt 5). This was all part of a discussion on the atonement that I don't see has anything to do with this thread. The point in the OP was that Paul taught things very different than Y'shua. I don't believe that's true. Maybe the Jews and the atonement could be a subject for a different thread. I don't believe this is true. I doubt you would like what I do believe is true about that, but it's not the topic of this thread. This didn't happen.I'm sorry this thread touched on a lot of anger you have about your religious background, but this is not the place to vent that anger. Maybe you could start a thread on Paul & the Jewish faith or something, but that's not this thread.

Hi truthlover, The idea that we all sin is not new. The idea that Adam was the first sinner is not new either. What is new in Paul is the notion that Adam's sin is cascaded through the generations to each and all of us and that we're all paying (death) for it, regardless of our own transgressions. If you don't think so, show me where it says so, outside Paul. Where, outside Paul, is the idea that all need redemption as a result of Adam's sin, is introduced?. Yes, he does :
"..as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all man, because all sinned... "(Rom 5:12)
According to Paul, we've all been dying-and going to die- because of Adam's sin!In contrast, the OT God says: "... the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20-22). . I conclude he was the first because I don't know of anyone else who suggested it in that way before him. My take on John is that it draws on Paul's teachings: Paul also first equated Jesus with the Paschal Lamb(1 Cor. 5:7). The atonement sacrifice concept in the O.T is very different, it's a sacrifice offered by the Jews to atone for specific sins. Paul changes this to a sacrifice made by God (?? this doesn't even make sense) for all mankind to be cleansed of the original sin. there's no reason to suppose that this is about an atonement sacrifice. Jesus predicts (fears?) that by going to Jerusalem he will die. In verses 24-25 he's calling on his disciples to follow and die with him. Would he need his disciples to die with him, if the only reason he was going to die was to redeem us ? Maybe St. Anselm is the one who got the doctrine established in the church, but he didn't make it out of thin air, did he? where did he pick it up from ? Obviously, Paul.I think Paul needed the concept of original sin, so he could put forward the concept of a saviour who sacrificed himself for us. If we're not doomed from the start, there's very little to be saved from. Also, both concepts are not new to the people Paul preached to (Greeks and Romans). The parallels with the myths of Pandora's box (original sin) and Prometheus (saviour's atonement sacrifice) would make Christianity much easier to accept by the Hellenistic world.

---

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

No, now you are just standing on an interpretation that I've at least suggested is not an accurate one. While I didn't go into that directly, I did tell you where I got an alternate interpretation from. You, however, have just thrown an interpretation out with no justification or backing.Paul does say that people are dead in their sins, already. That's the way they are. He does not say, anywhere, that people are going to be punished for Adam's sin. And if that's what he meant by "death reigning" or our being "dead in our sins," then isn't it odd that it took centuries for anyone to figure out that's what he meant.The people who spoke Paul's Greek and lived in his era and came out of his churches don't know anything about people being punished for Adam's sin. And Paul says the exact opposite of that in Romans 2:5-7 and Romans 6:14-23 where eternal life and eternal punishment are hinged on a person's own sins.Doesn't it seem odd that in between those two passages Paul would say something that should be interpreted to mean a person can be punished for Adam's sin, and then that it would take about four centuries for anyone to figure out that's what he meant?I don't think it's a stretch to say that the "punishment for Adam's sin" interpretation is highly unlikely to be correct. This is horribly disingenuous. So, the OT never says that a son shall pay for the sins of his father, right? 1. I don't agree Paul does this. I think St. Anselm did this a thousand years after Paul, and 100% of the research I've seen on the history of the atonement doctrine agrees with me.2. This has exactly nothing to do with whether Christianity came from Jesus or Paul. Christianity's differences from Judaism have nothing to do with your original premise, unless you can show, from the Gospels, since that's the only source there is, that Jesus leaned toward the Jewish view and away from Paul's view (or his supposed view). I gave you a reference in John, late though it is, plus one in Matthew, unclear though it is, suggesting Jesus' already had some sort of idea of himself as an atonement (though not the "pay the price for your sins" type, which Paul didn't have, either). Perhaps you have some reference suggesting he saw things only from the Jewish view? Matt 16 is indeed unclear. However, what you're saying here is a lot less likely, I think. He says in that passage that he's going to die and rise again, not only that he's going to die. He says that it's "necessary" for this to happen.Do you have an alternative purpose for him to die and rise again? If he's going to rise, why bother dying in the first place, unless there's a purpose to the death?As far as later, when Y'shua says that his disciples must "take up their cross and follow him," that is separated from his original point. He only says that later after Peter pulls him aside and tells him that it must never happen that he suffer and die. Only then, after being pulled aside and thus somewhat out of the context of his own death and resurrection, does he tell them that they, if they are to follow him, must take up the cross and come after him.Of course, that's looking at it from a standpoint that would be unusual to a disciple. We, of course, believe that Y'shua was talking about a death that must be died to our own will every day, not a "you must die with me in Jerusalem, where I'm going to die." Why would that be obvious? Martin Luther came up with a version of "faith apart from works" that completely contradicts numerous passages in Paul's own writings and is completely antithetical to what was written in Paul's churches for centuries afterward. He got it from Paul's own letters.What I've read in histories of the doctrine of the atonement is that he got it from the Roman legal system. To this day, Orthodox believers, the other "Catholic" branch that belongs to the eastern world, would argue exactly that, and they disagree completely with the Roman Catholic/Protestant view of the atonement. They say the Roman legal system and viewpoint that affects the west brought on the western doctrine of the atonement. Interestingly enough, if you'd drop the term "original sin" here, I would agree with you here. Paul is most definitely arguing throughout Romans that there is something to be saved from. It's not the "you're doomed because Adam sinned so you have to go to hell, too" thing that the Protestants (sort of) and Catholics (directly) teach. But it does say, "Everybody is prone to sin. When I describe my struggle with sin here in Romans 7, everyone can relate. What a terrible body we live in; one we've inherited from Adam. It's so hard to live morally."Paul even cries, "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?"That is indeed Paul's point. Everyone who tries to live the Jewish moral system can relate to Romans 7, or at least almost everyone (and Romans 3 says, "look, even the Scriptures say that," which is the reason for all those quotes). Obviously, something is wrong. A lot of people on this board would say that the requirements of Jewish law are wrong. However, Paul can't say that. He says the requirements of Jewish law are perfect. Something, then, is wrong with Paul, who's struggling, and with all those others, who are struggling, too.He says that with "Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death." Then he says what that deliverance is:

quote:

---

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh...

---

Pause here to keep us in context: Nothing wrong with the law, something wrong with us (the flesh, our body) who struggle so hard when try to keep it...

quote:

---

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous requirement of the law could be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh [i.e., our own bodily lusts], but according to the Spirit.

---

I think this is very clear. It's not "Adam sinned, so Jesus had to pay the price for Adam's sin by being a blood atonement." It's much, much more mystical. It's "We're all sinners. We all can't keep the perfect law that was given through Moses. We need help. Therefore God sent his Son in our bodies, and he, by dying in one of our bodies, condemned the sin that is in our bodies, and he rose again, so that we could rise to a spiritual life with him."Now I'm not saying that's easier to understand. It's doggone complicated, if not impossible, to understand. If you want to attack the idea as strange, go ahead. However, it's right there in black and white (blue and white here) for you, and I think it's quite clear.The reason I'm confident it's so clear is because that's the doctrine everyone talked about and addressed for centuries after Paul. There's no hint of that "pay-the-price" atonement doctrine that Paul is accused of inventing.Not for centuries...not a hint...There's some real interesting discussions of the subject by the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, though. Irenaeus, for example, says that Jesus lived as an infant, a child, a young man, a grown man, and an old man (Irenaeus argued that he lived to 50) so that he could purify every part of our lives. By living through them and then dying he put to death negative influences in every aspect of life.Irenaeus even argues that baptism is effective in transforming converts only because Jesus was baptised. It influenced the waters of baptism that would come later.Justin Martyr (he's a bit earlier than Irenaeus, mid 2nd century) says that the whole world is better off since Christ's death; that there's less evil influence in the world. I'm pretty sure, from memory, that most of the 2nd century apologists said similar things.One very common description of the purpose in Christ's death, among the early fathers (this would be more common from Clement of Alexandria, c. AD 190, on), is the parable of the strong man. To them Y'shua died so he could enter the domain of satan, and there he bound satan, thus decreasing his influence in the world, and then broke free back into life.I think any decent history of the atonement doctrine would address all this. You can think it's weird, but you really can't pin Anselm's/RC's/Protestant's atonement doctrine on Paul. It's just not historically valid. Well, it does parallel, but I think it's because most societies, especially civilized ones, have known it as hard to live within the rules of society, especially if someone has come along and made the rules as strict as Moses did! It makes you ask whether there's something wrong with the rules or something wrong with people (gosh, that's a different topic it would be fun to debate).Pandora's box and an internal death being passed down from Adam both try to explain what's wrong with people. I don't know Prometheus' story well enough to address it, but is he really a savior for others, delivering them from the influence brought about by Pandora's box?