Christianity without Paul

[Steeno7]

My opinion:

Christianity is Christ. Neither Paul nor any other New Testament writer brought more to Christianity than Christ already had - which was Himself. I think this is reflected in Paul's own statement, For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," are you not merely men? Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth [1 Corinthians 4,7].

The most important New Testament writings, again in my opinion, are the Gospels. The other writings (except maybe Revelation) are expositions on the Gospel teachings by the Apostles or those who passed on what they heard from the Apostles (e.g. Mark). There is actually a large corpus of writings that are also edifying written by those who were taught by the Apostles - the so-called "Apostolic Fathers" - but these writings were not included in the canon because they were not of the Apostles themselves, but by those who followed after them (e.g. Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas). Then there are writings of those who were taught by those who were taught by the Apostles, etc. (i.e. other Church Fathers).

I don't believe it is correct to say that Paul's writings somehow complemented or completed what was taught by Christ. I think, rather, that he and the other New Testament writers provide interpretation of the Gospel teachings and not new revealed truths that were somehow "missed" in the Gospels.

My opinion, anyway.

"The Resurrection is the central theme in every Christian sermon reports in the Acts. The Resurrection, and its consequences were the "gospel" or good news which the Christian brought: what we call the 'gospels,' the narratives of Our Lord's llife and death, were composed later for the benefit of those who had alrady accepted the gospel. They were in no sense the basis of Christianity: they were written for those already converted. The miracles of the Resurrection, and the theology of that miracle, comes first: the biography comes later as a comment on it. Nothing could be more unhistorical than to pick out selected sayings of Christ from the gospels and to regard those as the datum and the rest of the New Testament as a construction upon it. The first fact in the history of Christendom is a number of people who say they have seen the Resurrection." (C.S. Lewis, Miracles. pgs. 143,144).

 

[Steeno7]

Some aspects of the story of Judas are contradictory. All four evangelists number Judas among "the twelve" apostles. Paul does not mention Judas explicitly but does say in 1 Corinthians 15:5 when speaking of the resurrection of Jesus "that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." Whenever the phrase "the Twelve" is used in New Testament scripture the meaning is very clear that the reference is to the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul suggests here that Judas was a witness to the resurrection.

If we turn to the Gospels we quickly discover that in Mark, Luke and John the story of Judas ends with the betrayal and nothing further is mentioned of his fate. It is more explicit inMatthew 27:3-5 "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." This event clearly took place after Jesus had been seized but before the crucifixion and the resurrection. Acts 1:18 gives a more lurid description of the suicide of Judas but is not helpful in placing the time. The Acts account also provides further contradictions both in the manner of his death and what happened to the money.

Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Paul is wrong or Matthew is wrong. Let me suggest to you that Paul knew nothing of any betrayal by Judas because the story was not developed until after Paul's death. The story itself is a midrashic construction based on a number of Old Testament references. The necessity to develop Judas as a reviled scapegoat was to deflect blame from the Romans to the Jews in order to assist Christian survival in a Roman world, which was already turning a very negative eye on the early Christians. What better way to do so than to choose a character bearing the very name of the nation of the Jews? This aspect of scriptural motivation could be developed much further.

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

In both citations above Jesus is addressing “the twelve” (including Judas) indicating to them that they (including Judas) would be with him in the kingdom. If Judas did indeed betray Jesus and is condemned then either Jesus was unaware of Judas’ impending betrayal or Jesus lied to Judas (and the other eleven). Everywhere a reference is made to ”the twelve” the roster includes Judas. But then we come to the following citation.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Paul here is telling us that Judas was a witness to the resurrection. No mention is made of the betrayal or the “fact” that Judas committed suicide before the resurrection. It must also be pointed out that Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until almost two months after the resurrection. There are some serious contradictions in these three sources. We do not have to invent ways to reconcile these problems when there is a single simple explanation --- the betrayal and suicide of Judas are a late developing interpretive mythology that Paul was unaware of.

One further point deserves to be mentioned and that is the historicity of the ‘thirty pieces of silver’. The fact of the matter is that pieces of silver were not used in the Temple and had not been for over 200 years. They were replaced by minted coins thereby avoiding the necessity of weighing on a balance to determine value.

Who wrote this mess?

 

[JackRT]

Who wrote this mess?

I did.

 

[Soyeong]

I tend to lean towards the thinking that Christianity would exist perhaps like Judaism does without Paul because Peter and the other apostles were not really actively evangelizing non Jews even though Peter did have a few outings with Gentiles he didn't feel a need to go outside of Israel to them and as far as we can see only Paul and his group went to the Gentiles in force. Paul fought the Jewish believers in Christ also to keep them from binding Gentiles to the Mosaic law which without Paul's intercession the council of Jerusalem would probably have never met and made the edict that made Christians not just another sect of Judaism... and to Jews who weren't believers in Christ they would be seen as heretics or at least outcasts and those gentiles would be on their own.

To put it simply I believe without Paul Christianity would probably have LESS adherents than there are Jews now perhaps even die out and there would be no ascertainable "Gospel of Grace" neither it may be considered gnostic to what would be considered "mainstream" Christianity without Paul's revealed words. I think that there would be no protestants or Catholics but rather some pseudo-Judaism type religion.

Interpreting Paul as being against the law would be making the same mistake that is warned about in 2 Peter 3:15-17. Paul had no authority to tell Gentiles not to obey God and if he had, then Gentiles should obey God instead of him because we must obey God rather than man. The OT speaks about the inclusion of Gentiles, so they would still be included without Paul, though without him it might have been closer to rabbinic Judaism than the Judaism that Jesus taught.

 

[Soyeong]

Very well said. I think there are some who would rather have salvation based on works as they are like mice in a wheel cage constantly running about doing the "lords Business" instead of tending to the home that is burning with no one to put out the fire.
First we must know the WORD so we can Live the Word. All to often loads are placed upon the weakest that have the heaviest burdens, that they can carry. By praying for others they are carrying the heaviest burden of all, because so few really have a burden for praying for others.

At no point in the Bible does it say that God instructed people to do good works so that they could be saved by doing them, but rather the Bible does say that we are made new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works (Ephesians 2:10) and that OT Scriptures are profitable for training in righteousness and equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). God has also said that His commands are not too difficult or burdensome for us:

Deuteronomy 30:11 “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.

Matthew 11:28-30 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

 

[Extraneous]

I do wonder about that. Paul seems to know little of the life of Jesus. He actually contradicts the virgin birth and the betrayal of Judas. He cites less than 100 words of Jesus and these are on relatively trivial matters.

Jesus says take no thought for your life. Paul says to be anxious for nothing. Jesus says all the law is fulfilled in love, Paul says the same thing. Jesus recites all the ten commandments, except the Sabbath, and Paul does the same. Jesus teaches us the parable of the sower, Paul teaches us that we reap what we sow. Jesus says that God will give us food and clothing, Paul says to be content with food and clothing. Jesus says that obeying his words is like building your house on a solid foundation, Paul says that we should not trust in riches but instead lay a good foundation. Jesus says that if we keep his words that the spirit will teach us and comfort us. Paul says that if we keep Pauls commands that the God of peace will be with us. That makes sense seeing how Paul seems to teach the same things that Jesus teaches. It seems to me that Paul and Christ teach the same things and Paul was surely familiar with the teaching of Christ. While i dont understand everything Jesus and Paul teaches, i can see that they sound much alike to me. THey both teach me all that i need to know about living however, and all the same commands. even if i dont understand all their mysteries.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

How much of Christianity is Paul? Is the faith as we know it made up mostly of Paul and his teachings?

Where would we be without Paul?

I have wondered about Paul. He does seem to take up a large part of the NT in his writings etc. Did he have his own agenda? Was his teachings very different from those of Jesus?

I ask these questions because i am curious to know if others have asked these questions and what answers people give. I for one are very much inexperienced in Biblical matters but i am trying to learn more and more as time goes on.

Many who wish to justify themselves would be well pleased if they could remove Paul's writings.

 

[Standing Up]

How much of Christianity is Paul? Is the faith as we know it made up mostly of Paul and his teachings?

Where would we be without Paul?

I have wondered about Paul. He does seem to take up a large part of the NT in his writings etc. Did he have his own agenda? Was his teachings very different from those of Jesus?

I ask these questions because i am curious to know if others have asked these questions and what answers people give. I for one are very much inexperienced in Biblical matters but i am trying to learn more and more as time goes on.

Are you thinking Christ possibly didn't understand or communicate the message of grace?

 

[Soyeong]

Many who wish to justify themselves would be well pleased if they could remove Paul's writings.

Is there a single person here suggesting that we can justify ourselves?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Interpreting Paul as being against the law would be making the same mistake that is warned about in 2 Peter 3:15-17. Paul had no authority to tell Gentiles not to obey God and if he had, then Gentiles should obey God instead of him because we must obey God rather than man. The OT speaks about the inclusion of Gentiles, so they would still be included without Paul, though without him it might have been closer to rabbinic Judaism than the Judaism that Jesus taught.

Paul had plenty of chances to outright demand people be circumcized and also keep the Sabbath but never did so in fact he did the opposite. The OT doesn't include Gentiles in the nation of Israel and in the New Testament Jesus commanded his Apostles to NOT go unto the Gentiles and didn't include the Gentiles in the midst of his talk until he approached Paul.
In other words without Paul the Gentiles were clueless to where they stood with God. Paul never commanded Gentiles to keep the Law.

 

[Soyeong]

Paul had plenty of chances to outright demand people be circumcized and also keep the Sabbath but never did so in fact he did the opposite. The OT doesn't include Gentiles in the nation of Israel and in the New Testament Jesus commanded his Apostles to NOT go unto the Gentiles and didn't include the Gentiles in the midst of his talk until he approached Paul.
In other words without Paul the Gentiles were clueless to where they stood with God. Paul never commanded Gentiles to keep the Law.

The law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised, so he was upholding the law by not demanding that. He was having the Gentiles learn about Moses in the synagogues on every Sabbath (Acts 15:21) and encourage the Colossians to keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16). There were foreigners who attached themselves to Israel in the OT and in the NT Gentiles are grafted into Israel by faith in Messiah (Ephesians 2:19). Gentiles are also included as part of God's chosen people (1 Peter 2:9-10) and should obey the commands that God has given to His chosen people. Israel was referred to as the church in the OT and Gentiles are now part of that. The law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct and how to avoid a sinful conduct (Romans 7:12) and Gentiles are told to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10) and to avoid a sinful conduct (Romans 6:15). Furthermore, Paul had no authority to countermand God and tell Gentiles not to obey Him, but rather Jesus set a perfect example for us to follow of how to obey the law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that we ought to obey his commands and walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6).

 

[Extraneous]

The law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised, so he was upholding the law by not demanding that. He was having the Gentiles learn about Moses in the synagogues on every Sabbath (Acts 15:21) and encourage the Colossians to keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16). There were foreigners who attached themselves to Israel in the OT and in the NT Gentiles are grafted into Israel by faith in Messiah (Ephesians 2:19). Gentiles are also included as part of God's chosen people (1 Peter 2:9-10) and should obey the commands that God has given to His chosen people. Israel was referred to as the church in the OT and Gentiles are now part of that. The law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct and how to avoid a sinful conduct (Romans 7:12) and Gentiles are told to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10) and to avoid a sinful conduct (Romans 6:15). Furthermore, Paul had no authority to countermand God and tell Gentiles not to obey Him, but rather Jesus set a perfect example for us to follow of how to obey the law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that we ought to obey his commands and walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6).

Paul teaches holiness. He teaches that gentiles to separate themselves from this world and all its unholy ways. Paul never countermanded the Lord. Paul teaches the same doctrine as Christ also taught. Jesus told His disciples to teach the gentile nations to observe what he commanded them. That's exactly what Paul does. Paul points to Christ in all things.


Galatians 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6 But godliness with contentment is great gain.
7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


Hebbrews 13: 5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said,

“Never will I leave you;
never will I forsake you.”[a]
6 So we say with confidence,

“The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid.
What can mere mortals do to me?”

 

[Goatee]

Some great posts.

 

[graceandpeace]

How much of Christianity is Paul? Is the faith as we know it made up mostly of Paul and his teachings?

Where would we be without Paul?

I have wondered about Paul. He does seem to take up a large part of the NT in his writings etc. Did he have his own agenda? Was his teachings very different from those of Jesus?

I ask these questions because i am curious to know if others have asked these questions and what answers people give. I for one are very much inexperienced in Biblical matters but i am trying to learn more and more as time goes on.

I think some Christisn denominations place most of their teaching emphasis on Paul & pseudo-Pauline writings. Other denominations place heavier emphasis on Jesus's teachings & witness.

I do see conflict between Jesus & Paul at times - or perhaps it would be safer to say I have doubt that Jesus would've always come to the same conclusions as Paul. I think Paul, in his authentic letters, was trying to help answer local church concerns & so I don't think everything he wrote is universally applicable. I have bigger issues with the pseudo-Pauline writings.

To the thread's concern, I don't know what Christianity would look like without Paul's contribution. Anything that comes to mind is just speculation on my part.

 

[brinny]

Steeno7 said: ↑
Pauls teachings are the teachings of Jesus.

I do wonder about that. Paul seems to know little of the life of Jesus. He actually contradicts the virgin birth and the betrayal of Judas. He cites less than 100 words of Jesus and these are on relatively trivial matters.

Where does Paul contradict the virgin birth and the betrayal of Judas?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Extraneous]

I see no conflict between Paul and the rest of the apostles letters,i.e. Peter, James, John. Nor do i see any in with the Gospels.

I think the contradiction is within ourselves, perhaps.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Christianity is not so much about the teachings as in other religions. It's about the King coming to rescue His people. It's about His life and death in history.

 

[Extraneous]

We all think we see contradictions at first, but the more we study it the less it seems to be in conflict. I believe it takes study, spiritual growth, and an understanding that the letter isn't always exactly as it seems at first glance.

 

[brinny]

Some aspects of the story of Judas are contradictory. All four evangelists number Judas among "the twelve" apostles. Paul does not mention Judas explicitly but does say in 1 Corinthians 15:5 when speaking of the resurrection of Jesus "that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve." Whenever the phrase "the Twelve" is used in New Testament scripture the meaning is very clear that the reference is to the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul suggests here that Judas was a witness to the resurrection.

If we turn to the Gospels we quickly discover that in Mark, Luke and John the story of Judas ends with the betrayal and nothing further is mentioned of his fate. It is more explicit inMatthew 27:3-5 "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders. 'I have sinned,' he said, 'for I have betrayed innocent blood.' 'What is that to us?' they replied. 'That's your responsibility.' So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself." This event clearly took place after Jesus had been seized but before the crucifixion and the resurrection. Acts 1:18 gives a more lurid description of the suicide of Judas but is not helpful in placing the time. The Acts account also provides further contradictions both in the manner of his death and what happened to the money.

Note also in Acts 1:24-26 that Matthias, the replacement for Judas, was elected after the ascension and just before Pentecost and thus could not be counted as among "the twelve" as a resurrection witness. There is a clear contradiction here. Either Paul is wrong or Matthew is wrong. Let me suggest to you that Paul knew nothing of any betrayal by Judas because the story was not developed until after Paul's death. The story itself is a midrashic construction based on a number of Old Testament references. The necessity to develop Judas as a reviled scapegoat was to deflect blame from the Romans to the Jews in order to assist Christian survival in a Roman world, which was already turning a very negative eye on the early Christians. What better way to do so than to choose a character bearing the very name of the nation of the Jews? This aspect of scriptural motivation could be developed much further.

Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

In both citations above Jesus is addressing “the twelve” (including Judas) indicating to them that they (including Judas) would be with him in the kingdom. If Judas did indeed betray Jesus and is condemned then either Jesus was unaware of Judas’ impending betrayal or Jesus lied to Judas (and the other eleven). Everywhere a reference is made to ”the twelve” the roster includes Judas. But then we come to the following citation.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

Paul here is telling us that Judas was a witness to the resurrection. No mention is made of the betrayal or the “fact” that Judas committed suicide before the resurrection. It must also be pointed out that Mattias was not chosen to replace Judas until almost two months after the resurrection. There are some serious contradictions in these three sources. We do not have to invent ways to reconcile these problems when there is a single simple explanation --- the betrayal and suicide of Judas are a late developing interpretive mythology that Paul was unaware of.

One further point deserves to be mentioned and that is the historicity of the ‘thirty pieces of silver’. The fact of the matter is that pieces of silver were not used in the Temple and had not been for over 200 years. They were replaced by minted coins thereby avoiding the necessity of weighing on a balance to determine value.

As i was reading your post, this came to mind:

What did Jesus say about Judas?

In addition, it is correct that Judas had done killed himself before the resurrection. It is also written that there was a reason that Judas was a part of the original 12. Can you share what that reason was?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The law does not require all Gentiles to become circumcised, so he was upholding the law by not demanding that. He was having the Gentiles learn about Moses in the synagogues on every Sabbath (Acts 15:21) and encourage the Colossians to keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16). There were foreigners who attached themselves to Israel in the OT and in the NT Gentiles are grafted into Israel by faith in Messiah (Ephesians 2:19). Gentiles are also included as part of God's chosen people (1 Peter 2:9-10) and should obey the commands that God has given to His chosen people. Israel was referred to as the church in the OT and Gentiles are now part of that. The law is God's instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct and how to avoid a sinful conduct (Romans 7:12) and Gentiles are told to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10) and to avoid a sinful conduct (Romans 6:15). Furthermore, Paul had no authority to countermand God and tell Gentiles not to obey Him, but rather Jesus set a perfect example for us to follow of how to obey the law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that we ought to obey his commands and walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6).

Nonsense, you are pretty much IGNORING the intent of the council of Jerusalem why would they DEMAND circumcision of gentiles to begin with if it was MEANINGLESS to the Law itself? The logic of this thinking is absent. Gentiles are not grafted into Israel, more nonsense. Foreigners who "attached" themselves to Israel became by circumcision Israelites or they were not allowed to partake of the covenant of Israel (the Law).
In other words you are spouting a bunch of false statements here.
Jesus never commanded ANY non Jews to keep the Law, Jesus never instructed Paul to teach Gentiles to keep the Law. You are arguing from SILENCE and will continue to do so the New Testament has plenty of content that if you were correct in your assertions would be 100% obvious, in your face, and outright out front proclaiming by TEACHING of direct commanding to keep the Law when in fact one must use prestidigitation to acquire such knowledge.

Exodus 12:48
But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.