Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

Hi Legend. Here's my post #209 from the thread "Is God determined to allow no proof of his existence" in Faith and Belief, as you said you would like to answer it over here.

quote:

---

Jesus never preached salvation by faith in himself.

---

Not so. He says belief in Himself is essential to salvation and many others besides Paul also say it:

quote:

---

He never claimed that he came to take the original sin away and spare us the punishment.

---

Well, he says that if we don't believe on Him we will die in our sins which certainly implies it:

quote:

---

In contrast to Paul, he taught that whoever practices the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.(Mat 5:17-20). Jesus' basic teachings -in a nutshell- were: don't lie, don't kill, don't steal, love your neighbour as yourself and you'll be fine.

​

Hence my point about Paul teaching ideas alien and even contrary to Jesus.

---

The Sermon on the Mount reveals the spiritual nature of the Law and to an honest person should reveal one's failure to obey it and in fact inability to obey it, because it condemns the very heart. Jesus is teaching the depths of the demand of the Law and its holiness. If we did obey it, of course we would be saved by that obedience.Paul has the task of elaborating the particulars of salvation by faith in Christ as opposed to salvation by works, because of the pressure by Jewish believers, but there is nothing in his teaching that contradicts Jesus' teaching.The most general answer to this charge of a contradiction between Jesus and Paul, however, is that you have to regard Paul as a baldfaced liar about how he was converted and commissioned by Jesus Christ Himself, by hearing directly from the risen Christ, and how this commissioning by Christ was affirmed by the apostles themselves.============================
To address your post#1 on this thread: But if 1) Jesus is in fact God, and 2) the "vision" was actual contact with Him, then 3) Paul was chosen by Jesus, and would not have been able to contradict Him without its being corrected by Him. I believe it was Truthlover on this thread who answered "power." I agree. It was on the authority of God Himself, Jesus Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit, that Paul taught what he taught. On this basis there is certainly no replacement of Jesus' teachings, extension of them maybe, but I think the most accurate idea is that Paul is an interpreter or exegete of the Hebrew scriptures who is revealing by the light of the Holy Spirit meanings contained in them that are not obvious to the unregenerate reader. Joseph Smith's "revelation" contradicts scripture in many ways, which others on this thread have documented. Paul's revelation was confirmed by the other apostles and by the early church led by the Holy Spirit, and his teachings DO illuminate the scriptures. The actual encounter with the risen Christ. If you reject that, then all kinds of doubts are bound to come up. If you accept it, then you study Paul to understand the Hebrew scriptures better, and the difference between the Old Testament religion given by God through Moses and the distortions of it practiced by the Jewish orthodoxy. Jesus also denounced their teachings, as they had gone astray into legalistic carnal/unspiritual understandings, following their own traditions instead of the spirit of the Law of God. He does preach to the Jews, immediately. I had to reread it to find out for sure, but in Acts 9, where the story of Paul's conversion is given, as soon as he has recovered his sight and spent a few days with the disciples at Damascus, "straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God" (verse 20). Then "after many days" "the Jews took counsel to kill him" and the disciples helped him escape from Damascus. From there he went to Jerusalem where he is at first rejected but finally accepted by the disciples (26-28).Then in Acts 10 and 11 the main event is Peter's being taught directly by God that the gospel is to go to the Gentiles. In this period Paul is apparently preaching in Antioch. Barnabas goes there to find him and preaches with him for a year (11:25-26). Then they return to Jerusalem in a time of famine to bring relief to the Jerusalem church. In this period (Acts 12) Herod cracks down on the church, kills James and imprisons Peter, which I believe is understood by some to be the beginning of the "scattering of the sheep" which pries the church loose from its Jerusalem headquarters and moves the gospel out to the Gentiles.{Jesus quotes the prophecy in Zechariah to refer to His crucifixion which will discourage His disciples and scatter them, but then this appears to be a second scattering as Herod persecutes His body. In Acts 13 Paul is officially commissioned by the Holy Spirit with Barnabas for special work, and they begin their journeys that eventually become Paul's specific ministry to the Gentiles.They always start by preaching in the synagogues (13:5, 14-42) In verse 42 Paul is asked by the Gentiles, proselytes of the synagogue, to preach to them.In verse 46 he says to the Jews who reject his message, "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing you put it from you and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, we turn to the Gentiles."And the rest is history.Edits to correct a mess of grammatical errors and add the quotes about scattering the sheep.
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-28-2005 09:59 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-28-2005 10:13 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-28-2005 10:17 PM

And once again I'd point out back that the majority of the quotes I listed specifically say to believe on HIM, not on his teaching. And according to the orthodox view, the gospel is Jesus' death on our behalf.However, let me ask you:What is "the gospel" according to you, Jar?Here's a pretty standard definition:

quote:

---

gospel (gspl)
n.
1. often Gospel The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.

---

"Redemption." What does "redemption" mean to you? How does Jesus' teaching lead to redemption.

Sorry if I've missed some things you've written on this. I keep having to repeat myself too for people who don't know I've already said something. Life on a message board.Anyway, what IS the "message from God?"How does it lead to anybody's redemption?And again, what IS redemption?You say my quotes mean we are to believe the message, (not believe in Jesus) so exactly what IS the message,and since you emphasize ALL, how are ALL mankind redeemed by it who have never heard it, and all those who've heard it and think it's stupid as so many here do? I know it's not the only interpretation, there's every kind of interpretation of the Bible.But then why did Jesus need to come? I mean after all, His teaching was striking in many ways but not all THAT different from the Jewish teachings in many ways. Exactly what about His teaching brings redemption that couldn't come by some other means?In Mark 1:14-15 Jesus is saying "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent and believe the gospel."Rather portentous words don't you think? The time is fulfilled? What time? What is the kingdom of God, and why is it now at hand? And again, what is the gospel we are supposed to believe?I don't think your understanding even begins to take into account what these two verses are saying. I don't know what it means to say it "meant or didn't mean Mark, Luke" etc. I suppose you left a word out somewhere?But if you mean they couldn't have meant what Jesus meant, why not? The gospel is the gospel, three of them were his disciples.

Well, it doesn't anywhere near account for what is actually written about Jesus, but I guess that's what you believe so I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

Just want to say that I'll be thinking about your post but if I don't get to it very soon or at all, that might be because Admin has sent me on another vacation, who knows how lengthy. Just so you know. If not, I'll be back with an answer soon. You don't believe what I believe, but since you seem to understand what I believe and why, perhaps you'll also understand why I'm not respecting the rule against arguing/declaring that one religious belief is the truth and others are false. In any case, I'll get back to your post if and when I can.

Well, here we are in Accuracy and Inerrancy, a Science forum, and you are bringing in external judgments of the validity of various Bible books, and I normally don't want to argue the Bible along these lines, so I may have to bow out of this discussion.To me the Bible is ALL "credible evidence" of what a Christian is to believe and I won't split it up. If you can argue your points WITHOUT basing them on external judgments of the validity of the different books I could possibly discuss it all with you, but I won't accept external judgments. This may mean that I just can't discuss it at all in a "science" forum.Paul is equivalent to the synoptics and to John. They are all canon, all determined by men led by the Holy Spirit to be the word of God. If you reject the judgment of these historical leaders of the Church I won't go there. Acts is no less inspired than any of the other books. There is every reason to believe Luke is its author, and no reason to impugn his thinking or Paul's theology.Acts 1-9 doesn't even mention Paul, it's about the growth of the early church, the almost exclusively Jewish church. The movement out from the predominantly Jewish church to the predominantly Gentile church is the main message of the last part of Acts and it is the message of Jesus Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit who commissioned Paul to take the gospel to the Gentiles.Since I believe Paul got his theology from God I think there's really nothing for us to discuss after all. I should have realized this at first. I believe this is getting too hung up on terminology. The word of Jesus does refer to himself on many occasions, and obedience is certainly required of a believer. I see no contradiction. It was all determined by men led by God to be God's own word and that's how I read it. Facts about who wrote what when are interesting in this regard but should not be used to discredit any part of it. Yes works FOLLOW upon true faith, and all of it is GIVEN by Christ Himself, including the will and the power to obey. We WILL be judged on our deeds, but in Christ our deeds done in faith are accepted. Yes, the Law is holy and perfect and ONLY Christ could fulfill it, only a perfectly sinless man could fulfill it, which He did both by obeying it perfectly and by dying so that sinners who CAN'T fulfill it might fulfill it through Him -- being justifed by His obedience and His death in our place. Yes, and the kingdom of heaven is populated by believers only, among whom this distinction will be made. Again, I was originally curious about how you make the split between Paul and Jesus but I realize now that I just can't go there. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to persuade you from your view, as mine is simply based on accepting the whole as inspired by God, and I don't regard the unbelieving scholars as useful for understanding it, but read believing theologians and scholars instead.Sorry, I guess I'm copping out.

If it's all the Holy Spirit, all the Spirit of Christ, there are no contradictions. But you should be able to point out what you think the differences are without reference to who wrote what and when, no? I'm curious enough to follow the argument as far as to see what you think Paul contradicts in Jesus' teachings, and John in the synoptics, etc.

Hello Phat. I don't know if you have studied the criticisms of dispensationalism but if you haven't here are some to consider: I'm not really up on the controversy but I know there are different versions of dispensationalism, so any of these references may not address your version but should have something to say that's relevant.

Do the disciples of Christ REALLY seem like they had any viewpoint of their own to push? Or the personal courage to preach their own ideas? ALL they have is what Jesus taught. They weren't zealots, they were ordinary Jews, many of them fishermen. I really don't get this idea that somehow the writers of the NT had an agenda of their own. They teach what was revealed to them and otherwise they have nothing else.I don't think the Buddha wrote down his own teachings either for that matter.{Edit: Never mind, I just read part of your post to Legend. Clearly you are willing to believe anything but what the Bible simply presents itself to be. Oh well. End of subject.}This message has been edited by Faith, 05-31-2005 08:53 PM

Most translations have "Simon the Canaanite" not "Zealot." In any case a member of the Zealot party would have been FAR from happy with this Messiah who turned out not to be leading Israel to victory over the Romans. Where would he get the motivation from his personal political position to preach this crucified failure of a Messiah?Judas? What makes him somebody who would promote the Messiah Jesus? He sold him out. Fishermen with personality. So? Nothing there to show they'd make anything up. They'd go back to fishing and ponder their deep disappointment for the rest of their lives if Jesus had not risen from the dead and sent power from heaven. They were simple honest men, not at all the kind who would make things up. That's just ridiculous. Non sequitur. Doesn't matter what you think of his character, this is about the authenticity of teachings that are written down by others. There is no lack of authenticity implied in either case.

No, but the point was that a Zealot would have expected the Messiah to deliver Israel from Rome, and THIS Messiah died, not exactly your inspiring moment for a Zealot, not calculated to fire him up to his political purposes, far more likely to send him into hiding, which is what all the disciples did when Jesus was crucified. Peter was reduced to cowardice shortly afterward if you will recall, and again, the whole lot of them retreated in confusion after Jesus' crucifixion. Even His resurrection and appearance to them didn't inspire any preaching of the gospel. It took the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to accomplish that.NO WAY could these twelve have invented the facts of the resurrection and the ascension. They had a completely other Messiah in mind, a very earthly kingly military leader after the model of David, and if anyone had told them the full mission of the Messiah they wouldn't have believed it and they certainly wouldn't have expected anyone else to believe it. They had to experience it to believe it, and then they KNEW, and it was only when they knew beyond a doubt that they could preach it with boldness.I thought you asked me which other translations have Simon the Canaanite so I looked them up but now I don't see that in your post. Oh well, here they are:

quote:

---

Is there some sort of problem with Simon being a Zealot, does it make any difference at all?

---

It doesn't matter. It's an academic point.But I remain astonished at your ability to imagine that those men could concoct Christianity as a lie. Amazing. But I'm not going to argue it any more, I see no point. People believe whatever they believe.