Christianity without Paul

[Radagast]

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.

Some very dubious assertions there.

 

[Radagast]

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 he isn't -- he's just using "The Twelve" as the name of the group.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I seriously wonder if Christianity would have survived at all without Paul. If it did, it would have been as a Judaic cult and would be virtually unrecognizable to Christians today.

I agree with this.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

What are your verses for those two statements.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

I don't think that verse in Matthew is conclusive to Judas immediately committing suicide. I think that is more than possible that he saw Christ.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

What are the psuedo Pauline writings?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Paul is the single most important apostle to the gentiles. Without him, I think Chrisitanity would have disappeared into history as a strange sect of judaism like the essenes. God chose Paul because I think Paul could relate to Romans and greeks better being more hellenized Jew compared to the 11 poor fisherman of Palestine. Think of Acts or in Galatians where Paul confronted Peter and others of a jew focused ministry the 11 were backsliding into. He was the cultural bridge that could better relate the gospel to the gentiles.

 

[Noxot]

Jesus picked Saul so ask Jesus. Jesus picked a lot of people for Christianity. there are way more than those in the bible though they are obviously important.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Let me also add that without Romans, specifically Romans 4, 5 and 6 we would have a very hard time understanding what happens when we are born again.

This is crucial to our understanding of our being a new creation in Christ and justification which is almost the most important piece of salvation.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Except that Abraham was a gentile.

How was Abraham a Gentile?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Psalms 119:45 I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts.

God's law is a law of liberty and it is sin that, which is in transgression of God's law that puts us in bondage. God's law can also put us in bondage if it is perverted into legalism, but that is not how God intended it to be kept or how Jesus taught to obey it. Goodnight.

Isn't this thread about Paul?

Must be other threads about the law for ya

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

How was Abraham a Gentile?

Yeah Abraham is sort of like the proto-jew?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yeah Abraham is sort of like the proto-jew?

Pronto Jew, please explain.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Pronto Jew, please explain.

A jew before there was jews. He is essentially the first one.

 

[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 was against the Law that was the property of Israel for Gentiles who were not of Israel. Paul had the authority of the Mosaic Law itself to tell Gentiles that they are NOT to keep the Law that was the sole property of Israel (Jews). To tell those who were not of Israel that the Law of Moses was to be obeyed and that they wer3e DISOBEYED GOD by not keeping them is telling ALL of Christianity that we have to be JEWISH and under the Mosaic Law to truly obey God..
In other words Paul was against the Law for GENTILES.... he also pointed out that in Christ the Law doesn't profit Jews any more because in Christ there is NO Jew OR Gentile so the difference that the Jews had (the LAW) was irrelevant to Christianity.

 

[Soyeong]

Paul was against the Law that was the property of Israel for Gentiles who were not of Israel. Paul had the authority of the Mosaic Law itself to tell Gentiles that they are NOT to keep the Law that was the sole property of Israel (Jews). To tell those who were not of Israel that the Law of Moses was to be obeyed and that they wer3e DISOBEYED GOD by not keeping them is telling ALL of Christianity that we have to be JEWISH and under the Mosaic Law to truly obey God..
In other words Paul was against the Law for GENTILES.... he also pointed out that in Christ the Law doesn't profit Jews any more because in Christ there is NO Jew OR Gentile so the difference that the Jews had (the LAW) was irrelevant to Christianity.

According to Romans 9:6-8, Israel is made up of people who are inheritors of the promise, so if you are an inheritor of the promise through faith in Messiah, then you are Israel, and the law is your property. Ephesians 2:19 says a similar thing that Gentiles are made fellow citizens of Israel through faith in Messiah.

We must obey God rather than man, so if God says to do something and man says that you don't have to do that, then we should obey God and disregard what man said. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, no one was given the authority to add to or subtract from God's law and it was a sin to do so, so neither Paul nor the Jerusalem Council had any authority to subtract all but four laws for Gentiles, and neither did they attempt to do so. Furthermore, if you still think Paul did tell anyone not to obey God's law, then according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, he was a false prophet who was not speaking for God, so you should disregard what he said.

Obeying God's law is about identifying with God, not about identifying with the Jews or their man-made customs. Many Jews incorrectly thought they had a leg up on salvation because they had been circumcised and "all Israel will be saved", but Paul was saying that we are all of equal footing when it comes to being in Christ. He was not denying that there were Jews, Gentiles, slaves, free, men, or women. Furthermore, according to Romans 3:31, our faith in Messiah upholds the law, so and he certainly was not saying our faith in Messiah makes the law unprofitable. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from transgressing God's law for the purpose of becoming obedient slaves to Him (Romans 6:16).

 

[Sophrosyne]

According to Romans 9:6-8, Israel is made up of people who are inheritors of the promise, so if you are an inheritor of the promise through faith in Messiah, then you are Israel, and the law is your property. Ephesians 2:19 says a similar thing that Gentiles are made fellow citizens of Israel through faith in Messiah.

We must obey God rather than man, so if God says to do something and man says that you don't have to do that, then we should obey God and disregard what man said. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, no one was given the authority to add to or subtract from God's law and it was a sin to do so, so neither Paul nor the Jerusalem Council had any authority to subtract all but four laws for Gentiles, and neither did they attempt to do so. Furthermore, if you think Paul did tell anyone not to obey God's law, then according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, he was a false prophet who was not speaking for God, so you should disregard what he said.

Obeying God's law is about identifying with God, not about identifying with the Jews or their man-made customs. Many Jews incorrectly thought they had a leg up on salvation because they had been circumcised and "all Israel will be saved", but Paul was saying that we are all of equal footing when it comes to being in Christ. He was not denying that there were Jews, Gentiles, slaves, free, men, or women. Furthermore, according to Romans 3:31, our faith in Messiah upholds the law, so and he certainly was not saying our faith in Messiah makes the law unprofitable. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from transgressing God's law for the purpose of becoming obedient slaves to Him (Romans 6:16).

Nope.... we aren't tied to any promise through Israel but through our faith through Abraham himself bypassing Israel. The fact that Romans makes a point to talk about the "fleshly children" of Israel as not inheriting shows one that Israel itself isn't the vessel but rather there is a group OF Israel that is and we can identify with the aspect of the group itself and not the aspect of being "of Israel".

Talking about "God's Law" is just another tactic to be obscure because God had more "LAW" than the Mosaic Law and more Law than Laws given to Israel and you wish to pick and choose which "laws" are God's and which rules/laws God spoke aren't really God's because they are IGNORED when God himself restricts laws to one group you break God's laws themselves by demanding they are for ALL people.

 

[ToBeLoved]

According to Romans 9:6-8, Israel is made up of people who are inheritors of the promise, so if you are an inheritor of the promise through faith in Messiah, then you are Israel, and the law is your property. Ephesians 2:19 says a similar thing that Gentiles are made fellow citizens of Israel through faith in Messiah.

We must obey God rather than man, so if God says to do something and man says that you don't have to do that, then we should obey God and disregard what man said. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, no one was given the authority to add to or subtract from God's law and it was a sin to do so, so neither Paul nor the Jerusalem Council had any authority to subtract all but four laws for Gentiles, and neither did they attempt to do so. Furthermore, if you still think Paul did tell anyone not to obey God's law, then according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, he was a false prophet who was not speaking for God, so you should disregard what he said.

Obeying God's law is about identifying with God, not about identifying with the Jews or their man-made customs. Many Jews incorrectly thought they had a leg up on salvation because they had been circumcised and "all Israel will be saved", but Paul was saying that we are all of equal footing when it comes to being in Christ. He was not denying that there were Jews, Gentiles, slaves, free, men, or women. Furthermore, according to Romans 3:31, our faith in Messiah upholds the law, so and he certainly was not saying our faith in Messiah makes the law unprofitable. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from transgressing God's law for the purpose of becoming obedient slaves to Him (Romans 6:16).

No. Gentiles are grafted into the same tree as Israel. No gentile thinks they are Israel,nor cares to be.

 

[Sophrosyne]

No. Gentiles are grafted into the same tree as Israel. No gentile thinks they are Israel,nor cares to be.

Herein lies the problem as law promoters and opponents of Paul's Gospel of Grace to Gentiles (and Jews) demand that Israel is the source instead of Abraham. They refuse to admit that we are grafted by faith where Abraham in grafted in.... and we are grafted into Christ and not a mostly unbelieving Israel. These same people then use this absurd idea that there is a "spiritual Israel" people are grafted into so as to separate them from carnal Israel when in fact the same people of Israel I believe are regrafted back into where Gentiles are because in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile so neither can truly be grafted into Israel and still not be considered.... Israel. As far as grafting is concerned you can graft a red rose into a pink rosebush and it won't give you pink roses nothing outwardly changes in the graft itself. Some would have you believe the rose changes colors (keeps the Law now) because of the graft. when it only draws strength from the root itself.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Herein lies the problem as law promoters and opponents of Paul's Gospel of Grace to Gentiles (and Jews) demand that Israel is the source instead of Abraham. They refuse to admit that we are grafted by faith where Abraham in grafted in.... and we are grafted into Christ and not a mostly unbelieving Israel. These same people then use this absurd idea that there is a "spiritual Israel" people are grafted into so as to separate them from carnal Israel when in fact the same people of Israel I believe are regrafted back into where Gentiles are because in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile so neither can truly be grafted into Israel and still not be considered.... Israel. As far as grafting is concerned you can graft a red rose into a pink rosebush and it won't give you pink roses nothing outwardly changes in the graft itself. Some would have you believe the rose changes colors (keeps the Law now) because of the graft. when it only draws strength from the root itself.

I agree.