Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

The function that Smith and the LDS perform for me is as a relatively modern example of the power of book based religion to organize a large social group in a total belief system.Jews, Christians, and Muslims have centuries of traditions that function in their cultures. But it didn't take long for LDS to create the same thing. This demonstrates to me how important, even "sacred", language is to humans. Language has extremely fundamental functions in human culture.It's clear to you and I that Joseph Smith made up his religion. But that is not clear to millions of Mormons. For myself the same is true for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The wonder to me is that all of these belief systems though socially and culturally very functional are also trasnparently flawed human creations whether ancient or modern and yet the millions of believers can't see through this illusion! Why? That is the puzzlement to me.lfen

yes, I agree. John, in particular, presents a much more mystical / mythical Jesus than the Synoptics. yes, I've been looking at his website on and off for the last few months, since you first pointed it out to me. I find his analysis of the missing Jesus references in Paul's letters very interesting. I was always puzzled by this lack of references that would surely add gravitas to Paul's teachings and make them more familiar to his readers.Overall, I think an historical Jesus did exist, but was someone very different to what is presented by modern day Christianity. The reason I think this is that mythological persons are usually based on historical characters (e.g. Agamemnon, Paul Bunyan, et al).Geza Vermes, in his books, gives a great insight from a Jewish historical and cultural perspective as to why an orthodox Jewish rabbi preaching the Galilean countryside (as Jesus is portrayed in the synoptics) is unlikely to be the entirely divine Son of God who is a spiritual channel to God and one who has performed a redemptive act of sacrifice, as Paul makes him out to be.

---

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

Thanks for your post, Legend.There's not a lot of room to answer what you've said. Since you're going to say that all the other letters of the NT are contemporaneous or later than Paul, you can say Paul is the one who produced any ideas in them. In fact, however, since the earliest the Gospels were written are around AD 60, then they're written contemporaneously with Paul or later as well.I think that lends more credence to my position than yours, since the Gospels were circulated in the same churches that Paul's letters were written to. If those churches didn't see the differences you're claiming are there, and they were closer in time and culture to the writings, then how can we claim to see the differences better? I think it's better said "for the purpose of," but that's not really different. Either way, Yeshua is saying that his blood is towards the goal or for the purpose of the remission of sins. We haven't accomplished anything by our Greek references. Either way, the future goal is the remission of sins. How does that happen? This passage doesn't say, but it is tied to his blood and the introduction of the NT ("This is the NT in my blood.") Well, I've said all along that this is exactly what Paul is saying, too. I don't agree that Yeshua's teachings are the ten commandments, because his teachings specifically expand those commandments (Matt 5 - "I came to bring the Law to its fulness). Paul agrees, saying, God sent his Son "so that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk...according to the Spirit" (Rom 8:3,4). He adds that eternal life is a reward given to those who "patiently continue to do good" and "do not grow weary in well-doing" (Rom 2:7; Gal 6:9).On that we agree, and I say Paul agrees. I would put an emphasis not just on following Yeshua's teachings, but also on the importance of being born again. While that statement is found in John's Gospel, not the synoptics, the idea is found in the Hebrew Scriptures, where Ezekiel says the time will come when God will take the stony heart out of men and give them a new heart, and Jeremiah says that there will be a new covenant in which God will write his laws directly on men's hearts rather than on tablets of stone. This is where the issue really lies. Paul does definitely tie the forgiveness of past sins to the blood of Christ. Of course, that's written in both letters of Peter as well, and it's the central theme of Hebrews (which really could not have been written by Paul, because of 2:4; Paul never attributes his Gospel to "them").As you said, Yeshua says as well that his life is given as a ransom. He mentions the forgiveness of sins in the same context as the blood of the new testament, and he does that in all three Gospels. Matthew quotes Isaiah 53 as applying to Yeshua. You said Isaiah 53 is disputed or questionable, but we're not talking about Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53. We're talking about synoptic Gospel interpretations, and if Matthew, who applied even Isaiah 7 to Yeshua, applies one part of Isaiah 53 to Yeshua, you can be certain he applies the rest of it to him. Surely you're not suggesting that Matthew would say Yeshua fulfilled Is 53:4, but not Is 53:5? I don't think Occam's razor has anything to do with freedom from persecution vs. freedom from sins at all. It's obvious that there is a strong focus on freedom from sin in Matthew and all the synoptic Gospels, so assuming that he's ransoming his people from persecution rather than sin's power is not the simplest or most obvious thing at all. I don't believe this is true, either. If you have the thoughts and opinions of those who read and circulated the stories, that is likely to be of far more value than anything we can interpret on our own today.Again, I think your objection is to the bizarre theories of Yeshua's mission that have developed first through the dark ages in the legalistic, western mindset of the Roman empire and were completed by the Protestant Reformation. Those theories say, "One sin will get you thrown into hell. Jesus died to pay for all sins to satisfy an angry God who must punish sin. Those who believe in Jesus get all their sins forgiven, and everyone else who has committed even one sin is thrown into a blazing fire to be tortured forever and ever and ever."That's bizarre, and it makes God a robot or a sadist, one or the other. It's unjust at the core, allowing horridly unkind and unloving believers to enter eternal bliss, while unbelievers of the most wonderful demeanor are tortured forever. Everyone's heart objects to this, even Christians' hearts.I agree that's something to object to. However, it's not something to blame Paul for. Nor should it give us freedom to swing clear to the other side and find an interpretation of the Gospels that ignores the churches that the writers of the Gospels produced or were a part of.

I know some like Mithras and Hercules appear to be not based on historical characters. I didn't know Paul Bunyan was. I haven't yet gotten Google to yield any sources that point to a person.I think there might have been a historical teacher. Even if that is the case, I suspect we will never know what he taught.I'd like to think he had experienced an awakening like the Buddha and was killed before he had barely started to teach it. But that is simply my personal preference. I see no evidence beyond a few lines in the Gospels that might have come from other sources like the Cynics.lfen

Hi truthlover,it seems that one of the main points of your argument is that the early churches didn't see any contradictions between Paul's teachings and the early gospels.How do we know that they didn't ? And even if there is no evidence that they did would that be surprising, given that most of the churches in the GrecoRoman world were founded by Paul ?!why would these early Christians doubt their founder's word in the light of some new writings of Jewish origin ? Why not simply try to align these new writings with Paul's theology, much like it happens nowadays ? That's probably how John's gospel came to be.Furthermore, how could they doubt the word of someone who openly claims he knows better than Jesus's own disciples (Gal 2:11-21), including Peter 'the Rock' ?!I think that whether early churches picked up any contradictions between Paul and the early gospels is a moot point.

---

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

The earliest of the synoptic gospels (mark) was probably written after 70 C.E.,.. which was not contemporary with Paul.The one trend you can definatley point out is that the further away from Paul you get, the more detailed the gospel is about the life of Jesus, and the more elaborate the theology.

This would establish my point, anyway, but it is likely that the sayings and stories that make up the Gospels are at least contemporaneous with Paul.My point is that Legend is contrasting Paul with the Gospels, as though a different theology is in the Gospels than is in Paul. My point is that the Gospels and their authors are the product of the same churches that knew and believed Paul's teaching. They CANNOT contradict, because the people who put the Gospels on paper almost surely knew and agreed with Paul's teachings.I say the reason that anyone even suggests Paul's teachings are different is because of the interpretations put on Paul's teachings since the Reformation (and since Anselm's theories on the atonement) have made us read Paul so differently than the early churches read him.Moving the Gospel writings back in time only backs up my argument more.

Well, almost. My point is that the early churches produced the early Gospels while agreeing with Paul's teachings. Thus, to look for contradictions between the two messages is impossible, because people believing Paul's teachings produced the Gospels. The people who quote one quote both. The Gospels came out of the churches that read and believed Paul (and had heard him speak). They did not come out of some other group believing something contradictory to Paul and rejecting Paul's writings. There could have been churches that rejected Paul but held to the Gospels. I poked around on the internet, and while it appears the Ebionites might fit this description, it doesn't appear anyone would argue that little group produced the Gospels. Overall, those who read the Gospels also read Paul, and those who read Paul also read the Gospels, even among the gnostics.For the record, but off the subject, I don't think Gal 2:1-11 constitutes a claim to know more than Peter. Paul is claiming Peter agreed with him but was playing the hypocrite. Acts 10 would back that claim up.The historical claim that James and Peter themselves gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul would seem to be backed up by the fact that their churches remained together and in fellowship from as early as we can find record.

It seems just that sin will have to be punished according to the measure of its commitalIt seems perfectly acceptable that God would be able to provide a mechanism whereby that which must be punished could be paid for by someone who was willing to pay the price for another. Love would be a sufficient motivator to devise such a mechanism - the only person having to be satisfied by the nature and workings of the mechanism being the designer(s) of itIt seems that 'horrid/wonderful demeanour' is a purely subjective notion and that a persons basic intuition would tell them that our standards for what constitutes 'horrid/wonderful demeanour' might not be Gods standards. Yes, some are better than others according to our standards. But compared to Gods standards is the separation all that great? Is there any separation of note at all?It seems perfectly reasonable that God can set the entry point to eternal bliss at any level he wants. If that level is 100% perfection then that is his perogative. That no one can reach it by their own behaviour alters that not - God is under no obligation to anyone.It seems reasonable that God can offer a free-willed person a choice to have another pay the price for their own sin. And reasonable that a free-willed person is free to reject the offerWhats unreasonable about any of this? It may cause my heart anguish. It may cause me to, in my very best moments, wish along with Paul, that I might be lost that another be saved (knowing however, along with Paul, that that is impossible). It might make me plead and beg with people and take the obvious flak that goes with the territory of something so wildly outlandish (if reasonable). It might bring me to my knees in pleading prayerBut object I do not. A guilty man objecting to justice applied to him forms a rather hollow basis for objection(if its too OT then by all means ignore the post TL)This message has been edited by iano, 03-May-2006 02:48 PM

yes I agree, Jesus expanded the ten commandments. ok, I've been trying to see this from your POV but here's where I get into difficulties. Romans 7, the way I understand it, is all about how the law cannot bring life. Flesh is the cause of sin (Rom 7:5,6). Because of sin and the dominance of flesh, men find it impossible to follow the law. Paul himself moans about how he's held captive by his own flesh and awaits deliverance (Rom 7:24).This deliverance is described in chapter 8. Verse 1 is an emphatic declaration that there is no condemnation of those who are in Jesus Christ and walk after the spirit. Why ? because (verse 2) the Spirit has liberated us from the law of sin and death. How ? (verse 3) As the law was undermined and made ineffective because of flesh,it cannot give the life it promises. But God did what the Law could not do, and he does it through the condemnation of sin on the cross and the consequent gift of the Spirit. Jesus is again presented here as a sin offering ("...and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh").The conclusion is given in verse 4: the Law doesn't make us righteous, the Spirit does.Paul then goes on with his usual tirade about the flesh and the carnal mind, etc. He must have really hated himself.Overall, I would have thought that Romans 7 & 8 confirm what I've been saying all along: Paul claims that as willing as we are to follow the law, we cannot, we're captives of our carnal mind and only the Spirit can deliver us from sin. What we have to do is "walk after the Spirit", whatever that may mean.Contrast this with Jesus's take, as presented in the synoptics: yes we're imperfect, yes we sin, but by trying to do what's good and what's right we can be forgiven and gain eternal life.Paul's is a fascinating theology, as it implies that God blundered creation (flesh) and then had to put it right by condemning his own son to death! In Romans 2 Paul is discussing how God will deal with men in the final judgment (Rom. 2:5). God's judgment will be impartial and based on their works. Those who have persevered in doing good may expect eternal life. Those who have not only heard, but kept, God's law, will receive God's justification.But who are these? There are none. Further on, in Romans 3:9-20 it says so plainly and emphaticaly.Paul's statements in Romans 2 can only be read as a declaration of standards, not as a prediction. Otherwise, Paul would end up contradicting himself in Romans 3!If Galatians 6:8 is understood as speaking only of a man's final salvation from hell, then I agree that it teaches clearly that this final salvation is by works. But in view of Paul's overall doctrine on excluding works from salvation I cannot see how that would be the case. Galatians 6 is a lecture on Christian conduct with emphasis on self-support between Christians (v10).Overall, according to Paul we're all slaves to our flesh and we fail to persevere in good works or truly to do God's law, so we cannot live up to "the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:21-26).

---

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

hi iano,that's an intersting subject but it's kind of OT here.If you want to start a new thread on this I -for one- would be happy to participate.

---

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

Not just at the mo thanks Legend. Was hoping for a quick OT aside from TL. I find a surprising amount of stuff he talks of being that with which I agree and I was just curious to fill in another blank so as to converge on the point on which our paths diverge.Nailing TLs POV is only slighty more difficult than nailing Jars POV which is only slightly more difficult than nailing jelly to a wallIts as simple as that!

Ok, well that post sure helped: Ok, I'm fine with your interpretation of Rom 7&8. We must speak differently or something, because I had to read it about three times before I decided you're not saying anything different than I say about it.Actually, I can't really fault, in general, your take on Jesus' message in the synoptics, either. I'm going to take issue with it in a moment, but your point would be validated by the sermon on the mount and statements like "go and sin no more" (though that's in John).Ok, on to where I do disagree: You're throwing me here. You said above that Paul says "only the Spirit can deliver us from sin." In Rom 3:21 he's saying the exact same thing. The righteousness of God which is through faith is exactly the same thing as the Spirit delivering us from sin.In Rom 3, he is saying that without "the righteousness of God which comes by faith" we are "none good, no, not one." But by we can receive the righteousness of God by faith, and this allows us to walk by the Spirit and do good. Paul's not talking about a pretend righteousness, like the Protestants talk about, where we have faith and God pretends like we're righteous. He's talking about a real righteousness, where we believe and the grace of God comes, sin doesn't have power over us any more (Rom 6:14), and we walk by the Spirit and fulfill the righteousness that the law seeks, but cannot provide due to the weakness of our flesh.Does that help? Is that clear? You were right with me in Rom 7 & 8, but you're throwing me here in Rom 3. Paul has no such overall doctrine. If you are trying to become righteous by working at it, he says, then you will fail, because your flesh is your enemy. But if you come to Christ by faith, then the righteousness of God will be given to you. It will come by faith, not works. When it comes to you, it will come in the form of grace which "teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age" (Tit 2;11,12) It will make you a new creature "created in Christ Jesus to do good works" (Eph 2:10) It will make it so "sin will not have power over you" (Rom 6:14)I don't think I'm saying anything far-fetched here. If you were following Rom 7 & 8, I think you'll be able to see I'm not being bizarre with the Scriptures here. It used to be that everyone in the church read Paul this way. I want to address this and one other thing you said in a different post, because it's almost a different subject.

I don't know exactly how Paul looked at the body. He definitely implies that death entered Adam's body, and he passed it down to us, and that is the reason we have this flesh problem.I have a different take on it. I think God evolved our flesh on purpose. I think God is in the business of creating a society of love towards one another, and I think that our flesh is not designed that way. Our bodies are designed for survival. Food matters, sex matters, getting our own matters. God's society involves setting aside your own needs, having one wife, no sex outside of marriage, putting God and others before food, comfort, etc. Paul only knew the Adam story. He didn't know about evolution, so he blamed it on Adam, and I blame it on evolution. Either way, God made it happen, so you're right, it's his plan. I'm okay with it, though I see many people are not.The early church used to say that God made the way difficult so that those who received the incredible award of eternal life would have to be worthy. Immortals are gods. If God is going to make us immortal, then he is making us gods. (Sorry to Christians for how heretical this sounds, but 1900 years ago, this was very typical orthodox theology.) He was not going to allow an untrained, uncontrollable human to obtain immortality.So he gave us an adversary...our body. It's to be overcome every day. If we don't overcome, we can't be immortal."For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if, by the Spirit, you put to death the deeds of the body, then you will live."Now, having said all that, let's go back to something you said earlier: Maybe. The fact is, Paul is right for many people. Many people can identify with Rom 7. (Actually, according to other things Paul wrote, Paul's not really one of them. He was doing pretty good following the Law even before he came to Christ.)Many people who know Christ's commands can't do them. Was the adultress of Jn 7:53ff able to "go and sin no more"? Were the people who heard the Sermon on the Mount able to go away and have a righteousness greater than the Pharisees and Scribes?When Jesus sent the rich man away, his disciples said, "How then can anyone enter the kingdom of God?" Jesus said with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. How different is that than what Paul said?It was Jesus who told Peter "after you are converted" (Luk 22) to go strengthen his brothers. It's clear he's talking about after his death.Keep in mind, it's not Paul who first said that there is none that does good, no, not one. Every comment he makes about the wickedness of men in Rom 3 is a quote from the Tanach. It's Ps 14 and Ps 53 that say "there's none good, no, not one."The fact is, Rom 7 is a real experience even for many who hear the Sermon on the Mount. I think Paul--and all other disciples of those early days--were just saying what Jesus said. Following these things and entering the kingdom of heaven is impossible with men, but with God, all things are possible. Come, believe, receive the righteousness that descends from heaven, and grace will teach you these things and break sin's power over you.One more thing. Even Jesus and James talk about the need not only for grace, but for the church. Matt 18:15ff and Jam 5:20 both talk about the need for those in the church to talk to one another in order for each other to be restored.Yes, some seem to be able to walk righteously. But Jesus came to call sinners, not the rare and righteous, to repentance. To those, I believe he offers the power of God, grace, so that they have something apart from works to rely on: grace coming down to enable them to walk by the Spirit and overcome the flesh.

I don't believe that Paul was or could have been the first Christian disciple. He persecuted the Christian disciples. It was that former life of opposing the Christian faith which furnished the backround of his becoming a disciple.But a very basic reading of the book of Acts informs me of this. Compared to the first apostles he was a "Johnny Come Lately" kind of apostle. I am sure that he was a test to the older apostles and workers until he won their trust.So who was the first Christian? I don't know. Probably the first person that Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into in the closed room after His resurrection in John 20."Then Jesus said to them again, Peace be to you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you. And when He had said this, He breathed into them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit"(vs.21,22)At that moment perhaps the first Christian was regenerated with the divine life of the risen Christ.