Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

If you don't think he's making a good case, maybe you could substantiate your assertion, like ramoss did.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[tektonics.org] makes the following -supported- assertion: ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Deut.32.8 writes:

​

How truly disingenuous. Having just quoted a consensus of the "biblical establishment", you move on to a source which rejects consensus dates

---

...sigh....yes,because I wanted to support my original statement: by quoting tectonics I showed that if you listen to them
you can conclude that the synoptics were written between 40-70 AD.Did you even bother reading the previous posts?!

---

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

if you read the article you'll find that it's not a straight, one-to-one parallel. It does look as if James is raising points and Paul is specifically addressing them (James: "Was not Abraham our father...", Paul: "Thus Abraham.... ", James: "Listen, my beloved brethren...." - Paul: "But because of false brethren... "). Paul is also referring to James by name.It could all be circumstantial, of course, but it's an interesting point IMHO.So, just because the claim is made that Paul looks like he's responding to James, doesn't mean that you can apply it the other way round, without justifying it.** EDIT for spellingThis message has been edited by Legend, 06-01-2005 05:36 PM

---

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

I'd like to try and spring this thread back into life again.1) Progressive revelation. This has been mentioned in previous posts as an explanation for some of the discrepancies between the teachings of Jesus and Paul.This doesn't tie in with Jesus's statements that he alone is the teacher (Mat 23:8), and that the reason of his existence was to testify to the truth (John 18:37).Was Jesus's truth so partial or distorted that a decade or so later Paul had to come and complement it ? Apart from the fact that this doesn't make any sense, it also detracts from the power and accuracy of Jesus's message and also implies failure on the part of his disciples in transmitting it correctly and fully.Furthermore, if we accept that Progressive Revelation is the divinely-chosen mechanism for propagating the gospel where do we draw the line?Why stop at Paul? We can just as easily claim that 19 centuries later Joseph Smith and Reverend Moon revealed some more divine truths under the same mechanism! What makes Paul so special ?------------------------------------------------------------------2) Jesus preached to the Jews while Paul preached to Gentiles. Is another answer trying to justify the conflicting theologies.I could refute this with this verse:John 3:16 - For God so loved the WORLD that he gave his one and only Son (proviso: this is a disputed verse, probably a later add-on)But even without the above verse, this explanation is not satisfactory, given the doctrinal novelties that Paul introduces. If this explanation was true it would mean that:Jews can get saved by loving God and loving one another.
Gentiles get saved only by believing that Jesus died for their sins, etc.
Jews are born without sin.
Gentiles are born with sin.
Jews are worthy enough to atone for their sins themselves.
Gentiles aren't worthy enough to appease God and have to be justified by accepting Jesus's sacrifice...and other such comical differences that would -in effect- make up two religions, a Jewish one and a Gentile one.------------------------------------------------------------------3) The entirety of the Bible. is another get-out-of-jail card Paul's followers use. 'If it's in the Bible then it must be true' goes the argument.All I will say on this is that the Bible is but a selection, a pick-n-mix of the sources available to the early church. It didn't appear in a puff of smoke all ready to read but was put together by men with their own criteria and motives. A number of texts and gospels was left out by Man's choice, not Gods. Even among the different canons there are different inclusions and exclusions of texts.Anyone who invokes this premise as justification does nothing but publically place their faith in Man and not in God.Finally, I'd like to close with the following question:If Satan exists and wishes to corrupt God's message and stop mankind from being saved what would be a damn good way to do it ?

---

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

isn't that exactly what a 'pick-n-mix' of sources is ? doesn't your last sentence contradict the previous one ? yes, the same set of Scriptures is being discussed but each discussion has with its own flavour and twist of interpretation. After all, Paul based his theology on Jesus' life, but he just took events out of context and proportion (e.g. Jesus' death) to fit his own views. I take your point about Luther, however Luther didn't just make things up from scratch. He based his theology on Paul's teachings and Paul is the one who first mentions justification by faith, Jesus as atonement sacrifice and the 'born in sin' concept.Yes, Luther may have taken things to the next level but it was Paul who got the ball rolling.

---

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

I think you hit the nail on the head there, reverend!

---

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

Hi truthlover, ok then. Not in the way Paul suggests it. Paul adds a new rationale to justification: that humans are not worthy enough to appease God and therefore Christ did the justifying for them on the cross (Gal 2:21, 3:11-13). He focuses on the unworthiness of men as an indication that the crucifixion was needed for justification. This concept is first found in Paul's letters, to my knowledge. where ? sacrifice is mentioned throughout as a ritual the Jews did to appease God and there are numerous passages to indicate that it was a 'bad' ritual (Isaiah 1:11, Jer 7:22, Hosea 6:6, Psalms 40:7, 50:8-15, Mat 9:13, 12:7, Mark 12:33). At best, it was a purely symbolic ritual (Lev 16) of sin transference. The sacrificial animal took upon it the iniquity of the offender so that he could be reconciled with God.Paul is the first one to take this concept literally and, uniquely, apply it to Jesus (Romans 3:21-25, Ephesians 5:1-2) apparently in ignorance of the passages I mentioned above.Furthermore, Paul takes it one step further by suggesting that this sin transference doesn't only cover our OWN sins nut ALSO the original sin, which is (hear, hear) transferrable from generation to generation, (Rom 5:12, I Cor 15:22)Again, this is a first occurrence in Paul's teachings.In the synoptics Jesus described his crucifixion as 'ransom' (Mat 20:28, Mk 10:45). Ransom is something one pays to gain someone's freedom. Modern Christians use this -out of context- to justify Pauls' view of atonement sacrifice. However, at the time of Jesus, the word was almost exclusively used to describe the money a slave paid their master so that they could be set free. When Jesus says he's the ransom it's much more likely that he refers to his life in exchange for the freedom of his followers or compatriots from Roman persecution or even a metaphorical reference to his life of servitude to his fellow men, rather than a symbolic gesture to appease an angry God that would pose a mutitude of theological problems (e.g. who made the sacrifice / can god sacrifice to himself / etc) and would also go against his Jewish background and knowledge of the scriptures. sorry I should have made myself clearer. I meant born *with* sin, i.e. born sinners. Psalm 51 states being conceivedin sin which is something different. Paul, on the other hand, says "...as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". The implication is clear: when we are brought into this world, we carry Adam's sin with us, we are born sinners.Again, this is one of Paul's novel ideas. well, in Romans 3:28 Paul concludes that the law by itself doesn't justify man. You might remind me of verse 31 but IMO this is pretty muddy territory, just Paul covering his ass. The essence of Romans 3 is that justification without faith is impossible. From there it was only a small step for Luther to say that you didn't have to do anything to get saved.This message has been edited by Legend, 04-11-2006 08:01 PM

---

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

Hi truthlover,I've been re-reading Romans, in light of what both you and jar said about justification and behaviour / faith. You have an interesting take on Paul and I read carefully what you've been saying, though I still haven't made my mind up. One thing I do find hard to accept though is that the notion that Jesus was an atonement sacrifice existed before Paul.You've brought up a number of passages in support of this argument :

quote:

---

1 Jn 1:7 says, "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin."
Rev 1:5 says he "washed us from our sins in his own blood."

---

The author of John wrote his gospel and epistles long after Paul and he echoes Paul on a number of points, one of the most prominent being the reference to Jesus as a Paschal lamb (1 Cor. 5:7, John 1:29 ). John even altered the timing sequence in his gospel (against both the synoptics and historical probability) to make it appear that Jesus was executed at the same time as the Paschal lamb, so as to enhance the symbolic nature of his death. Paul introduced the idea, John built on it.

quote:

---

Matt 8:17 quotes Is 53 in reference to taking our infirmities and bearing our sicknesses. Isaiah adds "wounded for our transgressions" in that passage.

---

Isaiah 53 is a disputed passage at best. Some say it's referring to Israel and some say it's referring to the Messiah. Even if it is about the Messiah, this is the Jewish Messiah he's talking about, not Jesus. Isaiah is referring to the Messiah in other chapters too and it can't be Jesus as he's attributing a number of events to him that Jesus never fulfilled (Is 2:2-4, 11:9, 11:6-9, 25:8). Claiming that it's Jesus he's talking about is just post-hoc reasoning, wishful thinking. Throughout the gospels the writers have attempted to shoehorn OT prophecies into Jesus's life, sometimes with comical consequences (i.e. Jesus riding on two donkeys). Even so, Matt is quoting it in support of Jesus healing the sick and possessed, there's no implication of atonement sacrifice there.

quote:

---

1 Pet 3:18 says, "Christ has suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God."

---

I understand that 1 Pet is dated around the time of John's gospel, or in any case long after Paul's views were in circulation.

quote:

---

Matt 26:28 says, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

---

I think this is another case of post-hoc reasoning . The Greek text is "eis aphesin ton amartion". The preposition "eis" is commonly used in reference to a future goal, a bit like 'towards' in English. The clause is better translated as "...for future remission of sins". Jesus is merely saying here that his blood is sealing the new covenant which can lead people to salvation / forgiveness by following his teachings, i.e. follow ten commandments, the 2 greatest, etc.Atonement sacrifice is something the Jews did to atone for already committed sins. The scapegoat took upon it specific sins and the ritual had to be repeated for new sins. If the preposition in the passage above was "because of", then it might have been reasonable to interpret it as an expression of impending atonement sacrifice, i.e. Jesus shedding his blood to take upon him our committed sins. However, as it stands, I think that would be a wild extrapolation. I think Jesus is simply saying 'I'm serious and I'm genuine, if you do as I taught and did your sins will be forgiven'. He knows that we all sin, only God is perfect, but if we follow the commandments we can be forgiven (Mat 19:17 ). In previous chapters of Matthew he repeatedly forgives and heals people (even non-Jews) purely on the basis of repentance and their faith in his word NOT his death. Jesus, a devout Jew himself, telling his Jewish students that his death will atone for all future sins, just wouldn't (and still doesn't) make any sense.The same goes for the 'ransom' reference that Jesus uses about himself (Mat 20:28) . Only, in retrospect can we associate this with Paul's teaching on sacrifice. Occam's razor suggests that Jesus is speaking literally and that he is given up by his disciples / Jewish people in exchange for their freedom from prosecution. If he's using allegory, then it's only symbolic of his life spent serving others.I think the problem here is that people have this unwaranted belief that Paul *must* be right and then try to retro-fit Jesus's teachings to align them with those of Paul. If we pretend, just for a moment, that Paul never existed and look at the synoptics in their own light we can catch a glimpse of what Jesus was all about. The rest is just the myth on top of the man.

---

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

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."

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."

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."

Yes and that's exactly my point, which I'm re-iterating above! Paul says that no deeds, by themselves, will gain you justification, righteousness comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. And what faith is that ? It's faith in the redemptive death of Jesus. This is made clear in Gal 2:21 and Rom 3:23-26, amongst others."Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; " Rom 3:25 (KJV)Paul says that we can be made righteous ONLY if we believe that Jesus died for our sins. Through Faith in His Blood ! yes, but faith in what? Faith in what Jesus said and did ? Paul mentions nothing about that even when it would be in his interest to do so. When Paul talks about faith in Jesus it's about faith in Him as a redemptive sacrifice, as the Paschal lamb. Paul doesn't expect his audience to believe in loving your neighbour and turning the other cheek, he expects them to believe that Jesus is someone:"...In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins (Col 1:14)Is that part of Jesus's ministry?The major teaching event in the ministry of Jesus was the Sermon on the Mount. According to the scriptures, this was the largest gathering that Jesus addressed during His ministry. Given this opportunity, He did not bring people out of the audience and cure their illnesses. He did not ask the people to worship Him. He did not say that He was going to die for their sins. What He did do, was to teach the following :Be righteous, be meek, be pure of heart, be a peacemaker, be merciful (Matt 5:4-10). when given the chance to teach a large number of people, this is what Jesus felt to be important.As Jesus told the rich man, noone is perfectly good, except God. But that's ok, because if you follow the commandments and love and help your neighbour you will have eternal life.It's no coincidence that Jesus mentions a Samaritan in the context of gaining eternal life. The Samaritan wouldn't even know who Jesus was, let alone have faith in his redemptive death, yet Jesus implies that he would gain eternal life as someone who practices the 'love thy neighbour' command.In a nutshell, let me recap my point (somehow crudely),Paul's gospel: have faith in Jesus's sacrifice and the rest will follow.Jesus's gospel : do good and you'll be fine.I hope you can see the difference there and see why I'm saying that Pauls excludes works from salvation. To Paul, works are a by-product of faith in Jesus, an incidentary occurrence of the 'born in Spirit' experience. To Jesus, works/behaviour are everything. It's what will gain you eternal life.I hope we both agree on this. Then the main question would be if Jesus's 'eternal life' and Paul's 'justification' mean the one and same thing.

---

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

didn't the original gospel, at least in oral form, come out of the Jerusalem church ? That would be some other group believing something contradictory to Paul and rejecting Paul's writings. Allow me to quote from Hyam Maccoby's 'The Mythmaker', p. 139, Publisher: Barnes & Noble, 1986, ISBN: 0760707871,"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome. Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation."

---

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

like Ringo states in Message 203 Matthew suggests that the crowds were there before, during and after the end of his speech and also that they heard him. 1) The size and diversity of the crowd."And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan." (Matt 4:25)I think this is the greatest and most diverse crowd that Jesus ever addressed, therefore it makes sense to assume that he would emphasize the most important aspects of his doctrine.2) Length and scope of the speech.The sermon covers the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Matthew. It's not about a single topic but covers the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, Christian attitudes, warnings and new laws.3) The effect of the sermon.The message was clearly understood by and impressed the crowd."And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matt 7:28-29)

---

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

my point is that Jesus, in this major teaching event, sees fit to advocate behaviour and works instead of faith in his impending death and other such spiritual nonsense. I can't help but get the impression that you haven't been following the debate so far. I'm saying that Jesus, throughout the synoptics, bases his roadmap to salvation on works / behaviour. Paul, in his letters, implies that faith in Jesus's atonement sacrifice is the primary pre-requisite for justification / salvation. My claim is that we should understand Paul's teachings in light of those of Jesus, not the other way round.

---

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