Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

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.

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.

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?

Ok, I'll assume I was mistaken. You definitely seemed angry to me. (I didn't think you were Jewish, though).I, too, have witnessed the church structure founded on his books be psychologically damaging. I have to say, though, that it seems most churches are so ineffectual as to be harmless.

Really? Maybe this is all perspective, or maybe I'm missing something going on. I would tend to be real glad to see activity over passivity, so it's easy for me to see the passivity.

This is exactly what is being discussed. Your saying that this is so does not answer the question. Even saying that Paul's view of the atonement is not Jewish doesn't change anything, even if you had backed it up with something, instead of just saying so yourself. Saying Paul's view isn't Jewish does not establish that what Jesus taught was Jewish or different than Paul.I've been saying that the atonement as it's taught in American churches, Protestant and Roman Catholic, doesn't come from Paul. (I give explanations of why I'm saying that in post 15). I also said the concept of original sin didn't come from Paul, either, and you said that in your post 21, too. Right, and Paul agrees with this. It's a very common teaching in the early church fathers (the men closest to and first influenced by the NT writings, especially Paul's) that Psalm 51 describes the real purpose of sacrifice. Ps 51 says that God doesn't want burnt offerings. He wants a pure heart and contrite spirit. Once there is repentance, then afterwards a sacrifice is offered.You won't find anything contrary to this for at least two centuries after Paul's death. All the "pay the price" theology came later, probably even later than Augustine's original sin teachings (which was 3 1/2 centuries after Paul), but I'm not as familiar with post-Nicene theology as I am with pre-Nicene.My presentation on what Paul taught on Christ's death is in post 15. I don't think Paul should be held responsible for what men have taught centuries and centuries later.

The latest stats I've seen, a year ago, say it's very slightly on the decline.You pointed out that you've experienced a lot of publicity for creationism lately, but that doesn't mean it's on the rise. Well, we may have a president that caters to fundamentalists, but we do not have a fundamentalist president. The Christian coalition does seem to be experiencing political successes.I am not against fundamentalist morality. In fact, I'm quite pro-fundamentalist morality. I'm just against legislating it. I would agree that Christians appear to be quite politically active. That's not the activity I meant when I mentioned all the passivity I see.Sorry we're miscommunicating so much. That's probably my fault.

Golly. Here I thought that when a topic was brought up on a debate board, people put up evidence and looked at that evidence. I wasted all that time giving references, when really we just should have been asking you! I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Or else, I don't understand what this has to do with anything that's been said. It is not only used as a term for a common man. It is used as a term for the common man, but ont "only." This is ludicrous. Nobody said this wasn't true, and whether it's abhorrent to Judaism is irrelevant. It's referenced clearly in John, and there's at least possibly reference to Y'shua as a sacrifice in the other Gospels. This leaves the charge that Paul is the inventor of the doctrine very unlikely.Let me add, I don't believe that a human sacrifice for salvation is abhorrent to Judaism or to anyone else. You're talking about dragging someone to an altar and slitting their throat or cutting out their heart. That's abhorrent to almost everyone, not just Jews. The man who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades, however, is abhhorrent to almost no one, including Jews.Thus, for you to say "the concept of Jesus being a sacrifice for salvation was there," as a defense of the theme of this thread is to miss the point entirely. Yes, far more than the concept is there. But it's there in the Gospels, too. The point is that the real complaint is about the type of sacrifice that says "God had to kill someone for people's sins; he couldn't just forgive them; someone had to die, and so a human sacrifice, Jesus, paid for those sins." I understand and agree with the complaint. I don't think God is like that, either. I just don't believe Paul taught that, and I think I've given strong evidence in defense of my point, and there's been nothing but assertions given against my point (especially by you). [qs]The discarding of the Jewish laws is Pauline, as well as a certain 'us vs them' attitude which caused centuries of conflict and death.No, the discarding of the Jewish laws comes from the Gospels. Paul handles the Jewish law exactly the way the Gospels handle them. See 1 Cor 9 and Paul's figurative handling of the law about oxen and corn. It is exactly the figurative handling Y'shua gives to the law in Matthew 5.Again, I assert that this whole thread is based on 2000 years of distortion. I assert as well that going back to those who were in Paul's churches and were much closer to his time would give a much better picture of what Paul taught, and even a cursory reading of the 2nd century fathers gives a much clearer picture of what was being said and taught, and the harmony between the Gospels and Paul's letters, which were written around the same time period by people who were part of the same movement, is obvious.

You're trying, and I'm trying, too. I think I understood what you're saying way better this time around. Hopefully, my answers will be more pertinent this time. This I agree with. I wasn't disagreeing with this, even though I realize it may have sounded like i was. This is what I was disagreeing with, and only one part of it; the "going to die" part. Death may reign over Adam's descendants, but Paul just said a couple chapters earlier that those who "patiently continue to do good" will inherit immortality, not death (Rom 2:6,7).But read this next point before you answer me. I think it will help clear up our communication. (Even if you still don't agree, it might help us disagree on the right issues.) If this is what you mean by punishment, then I probably can't disagree. I've been reading Roman Catholic/Protestant theology into what you're saying, because you mentioned original sin in your OP.However, I don't agree Paul originated the idea that death has reigned in us since Adam.Let me pause to try to be clear here. The Roman Catholics say that people will be punished, as in sent to hell, just for Adam's sin. That's original sin as I understand it. I disagree that Paul or Jesus taught that.Here you have said that people have death in them already, an effect of Adam's sin. I agree that Romans 5 says that. I agree Paul taught that. I don't agree, however, that this is new to Paul. I think that theology can be found in the Gospel's. Really, that's not strange or ironic. I spent about five years living in the writings of the 2nd & 3rd century fathers. The Roman Catholics have changed much of their theology since then. The Orthodox have changed a lot less, because they don't feel free to change things the way the pope does. I'm not Orthodox and I don't know all that much about them, but the common influence of the early fathers does mean I end up saying a lot of the same things they do. Well, my point was predicated on thinking you were referring to the Catholic doctrine of original sin, where people could die and go to hell for Adam's sin. The way I would know that no one thought Paul meant this for centuries was by reading pretty much everything that was written by anyone in the mainstream churches up until Nicea in AD 325.However, if all you're saying is that people are born with death in them because of Adam's sin, then I'll retract all that, and I'll instead argue that this is taught in the Gospels too. I'm not sure what to do with this, because I don't see how to come to agreement. I think Rom 2:5-10 leaves open the possibility of "patiently continuing to do good" and thus inheriting glory, honor, and immortality, just as the statement in Romans 1 "...their consciences either excusing or condemning them," leaves open the possibility that their consciences will excuse them.As far as the part about faith in Jesus, I agree Paul taught that, too. I, too, would believe and preach that men should come to Christ that they might enter into his life and thus be resurrected from the death that was handed down to them in Adam.That would certainly be a central theme of John's Gospel as well. Are we leaving John's Gospel out when we discuss what might have originated with Paul? I can see why that would be asked, since John's Gospel is decades later than Paul's letters, but if it's really from an eye-witness of Christ, as it claims to be, it does call into question whether Paul originated the theology we're discussing.But let me appeal to Matthew, then. In Matthew, Jesus says that the road to life is narrow and few find it. Why is this? Is it because people are generally good, or is it because people are generally evil, according to Y'shua? I want to suggest that Y'shua said few find the gate to life, and Paul was saying nothing different in Romans 1 and 2.Then Matt 20:28. Y'shua says there he was going to give his life a ransom for many. A chapter earlier, he said that those who had given up houses and family for his name's sake would inherit everlasting life.Is any of this different than what Paul is saying in Romans?I was arguing earlier that the idea that men are sent to hell for what Adam did is not true, because that is what the Roman Catholics teach, and I thought that's what you meant. That people are dead in sins and in need of life from Christ is most certainly a Pauline doctrine, but it's a doctrine from the Gospels, too.I would also reiterate my point that if a person can be excused for a good conscience (Rom 1) or inherit immortality for patiently continuing to do good (Rom 2), then Paul was not saying people will die, future, as in go to hell or die eternally, for Adam's sins, since they can be excused or be repaid immortality for a good conscience and patient continuance in doing good.I used up all my time on this above. I'll have to get back to the atonement issue and anything else that might have been brought up later in the thread at a different time.Thanks for the effort you put into post 30. I haven't read any later ones, and I saw that there was at least one directed to me.

Whew. It was still in my favorites.Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creationData's older than I remembered. The change was very small in the two samplings (47% creationist down to 44%) and was a long time ago (1991 and 1997).*********
Hilarious interlude here. I'm looking for more up to date information on evolution/creation belief. I found a web page that says belief in creation is increasing. But here's the proof it gives:

quote:

---

Especially when you realize that young-earth creationism is actually growing: a similar Gallup poll in 1982 showed only 44% believed in a young, created earth. Since scientific creationism only dates to the early 1960's, belief in a special creation was probably even less prevalent prior to 1982.

---

Well, who can argue with that? LOL.
******************Boy, I'm suspecting the pollster's questions have a lot to do with results. This page says 53% agree that "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." 79% believe that the continents have been around million of years and are moving. That was 2001. Yet, CBS news says that 55% of all Americans believe that God created humans in present form. That was 2004.Of course, this Gallup page says that only 45% believe that God created humans in their present form.I guess you're welcome to believe creationism is on the increase, and I can believe it's not, and we'll both be right!!!Let me know if you find anything better than all that.

I think there are good reasons to believe they did. We have very little of Paul's messages. Thirteen letters, some of them questionable, is not a lot of information. All the churches he wrote to, he had visited, and the information we have on him makes it clear that he was not short-winded.The early churches were very focused on preserving apostolic doctrine (I don't really think this was the best focus they could have had, but it was nonetheless a focus). Their thought on how to preserve apostolic doctrine was not to read apostolic writings and argue about them. It was to listen to the elders that the apostles appointed, and then to listen to the elders that those first elders appointed and so on (hence the later doctrine of apostolic succession, where the preservation of information was changed to the passing down of authority). And if there was question, then they appealed to the churches which could claim the most time spent there by apostles. Irenaeus, discussing this issue in AD 185, mentions Rome, Ephesus, and Smyrna as particularly important churches in this regard.The fact is, you can read writings from all over the Roman empire for a century or more after Paul, and their thoughts on apostolic teaching are very consistent, despite the distances and decades separating them.Later, as councils met, and united national leaderships developed, it became a lot easier to change old doctrines and invent new ones as arguments arose.

Well, off the topic, I have a reply to this. Because Jesus was raising up a spiritual nation, and having something set in stone, or in black and white, would produce the horrible, unloving, unspiritual, divided, and untransformed churches that are the product of focusing on Bible interpretation.I don't think Jesus was a pro-Bible kind of guy, with or without a New Testament."You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have life, but these are they which testify of me, and you refuse to come to me, that you might have life."

Well, I don't think it's unfortunate. I don't think he's a bad guy, but a person who produced some pretty marvelous societies, based on the testimony of those societies over the next century or more.He wanted his message to be received as the words of God, and he said so repeatedly.

I'm willing to leave it right there, I guess.

1 Thess 2:13:"We thank God without ceasing, because, when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God."1 Cor 14:37 would be real similar, saying that a prophet or spiritual person ought to acknowledge the things "we" write as the commandments of Christ.There's a number of others, such as 2 Cor 2:17 and 4:2, but those could all be read the way preachers say they're proclaiming the word of God today. Not like the two above, which clearly claim more than modern preachers would claim.I didn't bring that up to prove any point. I didn't think you or some of the others would think it a positive thing that he claimed to be writing the commandments of Christ or that his teachings were the word of God, but it seemed right to point out that he saw his own teachings that way.One further note:I would have liked to have found something more clear on the creation/evolution statistics. I made funny comments about it, because the lack of answers was frustrating.