Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

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.

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

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

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

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

nah, must have missed it. what i mean to say is that it's not "just a little different" from judaism. it's something entirely else. paul's arguing a strawman. well, no. jesus is trying to say that it's not the LAW that matters, but the mentality behind it. eternal reward/punishment is not really a jewish concept, everyone just goes to the grave. however, that attitude does seem to have been introduced with christ, and not paul, yes. well, i was giving some background on what using the term "lamb of god" would imply. it's not what paul argues it is. the idea was that jesus and the early church fits more judaism than paul does, because "lamb of god" does not imply atonement at all. i had give some background to explain that point. i'm fine with the idea that judaism got a little off track. i think what jesus was trying to do was set it right again. but that's not what paul is doing. paul is trying separate christianity from judaism. read galations? it's all about why we christians shouldn't hold the same covenants and customs as the jews. i think you're dealing with a mistaken impression here.i'm not jewish.i have no real anger about paul. his positions just don't make sense in light of actually learning about judaism. and i have witnessed the church structure founded on his books be psychologically damaging to myself and other christians.

---

אָרַח

tried to be as unbiased in that opinion as i could, being a former member of that sort of church. i don't think i agree with that at all. religious fundamentalism based on pauline philosophy is exceptionally strong right now. maybe more so than it's ever been in this country. (although not, say, rome...)

---

אָרַח

huh. that's a very good point. i hadn't looked at it that way. so even the title "lamb of god" is contradictory to jewish tradition... well, "scapegoat" is a mangled translations of azazel, which many later jews (prior to christ still) read as a proper name of an angel. in enoch, it's azazel who teaches men to make weapons to combat the nephilim (giants, in enoch). god then decides he can't have that, and floods the planet.and so that makes the scapegoat in leviticus basically a sacrifice to someone other than the lord. this, however, is also fitting with the supposed ancient origins of sacrifice, but that's probably another post.(also, wanna check over my post before describing the misfoundation in judaism? as an outsider, i feel kinda goofy trying to explain a religion that is not quite my own)This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-23-2005 04:33 PM

---

אָרַח

are you kidding? creationism's on the rise. we have a fundamentalist president. all kinds of bills are being proposed based on fundamentalist morality (gay marriage, evolution in schools, etc).

---

אָרַח

not in those regards, no. but i'm hardly the encyclopedic authority on jewish myth.the pauline reading of gen 3 does seem to build on pandora. jewish people simply don't read it that way.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-24-2005 10:16 PM

maybe he was. i've already suggested that the gospel of john had some gnostic influences (or at least targetted gnostics). perhaps paul had some gnostic influence too? i dunno. because no prophet EVER wrote their own words down. they had scribes for that, generally. that's why prophetic books start "the words of..." all the prophet did was deliver the speeches. it was their followers who ran after them and collected the things they said in books.if we were to find a "book of jesus" some day, my bet is that it would read exactly like isaiah, or jeremiah. maybe later editors would have even inserted the historical bits of the story from another source -- the gospels -- much like isaiah and jeremiah borrow from kings.

---

אָרַח

some of it can be implied, by looking at the rhetorical devices. but yeah, it would be useful to see what these were in response to. i wish modern churches would pay attention to this simple self-evident fact.

---

אָרַח

that doesn't sound like any church service i'm familiar with.(of course, maybe i've just managed to go all the wrong churches...)

---

אָרַח

i totally agree. what's that, exactly?

---

אָרַח