Christianity without St. Paul

[MarkA]

Peter didn't eat anything unclean, but that is semantics at this point.

anyway, Paul was part of the Sanhedrin, he was Jewish, but he was also a Roman citizen that is why he was able to spread the word more easily to the gentiles. the main point of contention was that the Apostles were worried that he was a spy, seeing that as Saul, he was persecuting any and all Christians he found. The main issues that he, and Peter to a lesser degree, were trying to point out was that the legalism that was rampant in Judaism, was NOT the way to Christ and you didn't have to adhere to the old sacrificial customs, because Christ was the Ultimate sacrifice and it was no longer needed.

and as far as not knowing Jesus personally has no bearing on whither or not his believes or his teachings were an extension of Christ's teachings. Heck neither Luke nor Mark were of the 12 and they both wrote 2 of the Gospels and Luke wrote Acts.

OK so you dont believe in the Apostolic Succession.

Nonetheless you seem to fail to understand the fundamental differences between Jesus' family and followers and Paul. There was no such thing as a way to Christ before Paul. To James and the others Jesus was clearly not some semi devine being but a member of a Jewish family and an apparently devout Jew.

To Paul he was 'invented' as some sort of Hellenistic demi god. Infused with some gnosticism and Jewish orthodoxy Jesus the man became irrelevent to Paul. Jesus was now important as a symbol and a catch all for Paul's mysticism.

 

[MarkA]

By the way, Peter was probably in Rome when he was killed trying to undo Paul's work there. To suggest they worked together or became reconciled appears to be an invention of the Roman church around the time of Marcion and Valentinian.

 

[MarkA]

Paul's concept of the Gospel was the same as that of James, Peter, and the other leaders of the early church. The reason he stands out is because he did not think it necessary for gentiles to become Jewish as a part of accepting the Gospel. Paul was as Jewish as they come, raised Jewish and trained by the greatest Rabbi of his time (Gameliel). This continued after his so-called conversion - I would argue that he saw it as a continuation of his faith, so it was not a conversion. He did not change the message of the Christian faith, nor the early church's understanding of Christ. Paul's understanding and message was examined deeply by the Apostles. His primary opposition were those that wanted new gentile believers to abide by Jewish custom (circumcision, food laws, etc.), and those that wanted to weaken the Christian message through pagan influences and philosophy. Sometimes he was simply caught between too different extremes of opposition. Paul primarily approached this by focusing on Christ and the Gospel. Also, remember that Paul was not the first person to take the message to the gentiles. Indeed it was Peter who first sat down with Gentiles to eat (unclean food even) and share the message - before Paul's experience on the road to Damascus. Peter later seems to have retreated from that position, but it seems likely that he was trying to walk the fence to keep the young church together. Without Paul's strong moderating influence, the church would have spread among the Jewish population similarly to OTL, but not amongst the gentiles. It would have remained an odd sect of Judaism, but probably never grown much beyond that. In fact, it may have simply died out. Of course, for us Christians God had something to do with way this all went, but it's still interesting to ponder the alternative.

Heh..I knew my Biblical Studies degree would come in handy someday. Also halfway to my Master of Divinity degree. er...just saying I have specific interest and knowledge on the subject.

Paul's concept of Jesus was the same as his family and followers? Nonsense.

At least you agree that without Paul there would be no christianity. So how do you then reconclie these self contradictory beliefs?

 

[Douglas]

OK so you dont believe in the Apostolic Succession.

Nonetheless you seem to fail to understand the fundamental differences between Jesus' family and followers and Paul. There was no such thing as a way to Christ before Paul. To James and the others Jesus was clearly not some semi devine being but a member of a Jewish family and an apparently devout Jew.

To Paul he was 'invented' as some sort of Hellenistic demi god. Infused with some gnosticism and Jewish orthodoxy Jesus the man became irrelevent to Paul. Jesus was now important as a symbol and a catch all for Paul's mysticism.

Your claims are based on a reading of the Scripture that is actively trying to "prove" a point: that Christianity as commonly practiced is made up by some crazy guy- the implication being that Christians are either unknowledgable, or just crazy. That's an interpretation...so stop acting as if you have more historical evidence than anyone else. Because you don't.

 

[MarkA]

Your claims are based on a reading of the Scripture that is actively trying to "prove" a point: that Christianity as commonly practiced is made up by some crazy guy- the implication being that Christians are either unknowledgable, or just crazy. That's an interpretation...so stop acting as if you have more historical evidence than anyone else. Because you don't.

Put the dummy back in boy.

The evidence seems pretty clear that Paul was actively opposed by James and the rest of Jesus' family and by his original followers. By Paul's own admission, he never met Jesus nor heard him preach. He also quite clearly makes the point that his experience is a mystical one. Visions, hearing voices and the like.

Is this crazy? To rational people yes but not to christians of course. Unless you think ALL the mystics like Francis, Paul and the rest are all irrelevent to the christian tradition?

 

[Douglas]

The evidence seems pretty clear that Paul was actively opposed by James and the rest of Jesus' family and by his original followers.

Over the question of legalism, NOT over Jesus' main theological message, which you seem to ignore, skipping straight to the point that they disagreed, and therefore Paul was not "real" Christianity.

By Paul's own admission, he never met Jesus nor heard him preach. He also quite clearly makes the point that his experience is a mystical one. Visions, hearing voices and the like.

The Gospels relate that James, Peter, and John were present at the Transfiguration. Your claim that Paul's "mysticism" (only a couple of visions were recorded) is far different from the Apostles' experience is definitely a stretch.

Is this crazy? To rational people yes but not to christians of course. Unless you think ALL the mystics like Francis, Paul and the rest are all irrelevent to the christian tradition?

Obviously I don't think that Paul was crazy...merely that you believe that.

And nice try, but religion and reasoning are not mutually exclusive.

 

[MarkA]

Over the question of legalism, NOT over Jesus' main theological message, which you seem to ignore, skipping straight to the point that they disagreed, and therefore Paul was not "real" Christianity.

Not so. The desposynos were Jews. They did not believe Jesus was devine. They did not accept that Paul, or any outsider, had any authority that did not come directly from them. Not from the dead Jesus but from them. They expected Jesus to return but not as a god but as the Messiah as grounded in Jewish tradition.

What was Jesus' main theological message by the way? Which of the conflicting and mutually exclusive philosophies do you think is the legimate one?

The Gospels relate that James, Peter, and John were present at the Transfiguration. Your claim that Paul's "mysticism" (only a couple of visions were recorded) is far different from the Apostles' experience is definitely a stretch.

The Gospels were written at a much later date than when Paul wrote his message. All the earliest writtings about Jesus had no embelishments only sayings attributed to him. Since most of the original followers remained Jews and practiced insidethe synagogues, there apparently was not much of a vision thing at all.

Obviously I don't think that Paul was crazy...merely that you believe that.

And nice try, but religion and reasoning are not mutually exclusive.

I happen to think that mystics by their very nature are mentally troubled. Or does this aply only to non-Christian mystics?

Of course reason and religion are mutually exclusive. Faith is a blind acceptance of religion.

 

[Douglas]

Not so. The desposynos were Jews. They did not believe Jesus was devine. They did not accept that Paul, or any outsider, had any authority that did not come directly from them. Not from the dead Jesus but from them. They expected Jesus to return but not as a god but as the Messiah as grounded in Jewish tradition.

Where is your proof? I would like to see something other than your interpretation of the Bible, or some other scholar's interpretation of the Bible.

What was Jesus' main theological message by the way? Which of the conflicting and mutually exclusive philosophies do you think is the legimate one?

How do Jesus' philosophies conflict? While I admit that some things are open to interpretation, I don't think you'll find anything that necessarily conflicts.

I happen to think that mystics by their very nature are mentally troubled. Or does this aply only to non-Christian mystics?

I don't know. You tell me.

Of course reason and religion are mutually exclusive. Faith is a blind acceptance of religion.

I believe because I've weighed things in my mind, and I think that Jesus' message is truth. But your comment convinces me that further debate with you will be pointless, because you blindly assume that faith and reason are entirely separate.

 

[Dearnen]

MarkA, I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that Paul's message was so different from James, Peter and the rest of Jesus original followers. The earliest reliable evidence doesn't indicate this at all. There were certainly issues of contention between Paul and the others, but not so deep as you're saying.

I agree that Jesus divinity was far from accepted at this early stage, even by Paul. The church was still struggling with just who Jesus was. It obviously wasn't really ironed out for another 3 centuries. The theologians in Antioch and Alexandria were caught up in debate for a long time about Jesus human/divine nature and the concept of the Trinity. The councils of Nicea and Chalcedon finally put the conclusions in writing, but there were still minor branches of the church that were unsure.

 

[Ace Venom]

St. Paul had a significant impact on Christianity. All one has to do is read his letters. It's also important to note that different interpretations of St. Paul's letters is what gets you sola fide, a major pillar of Lutheranism. St. Paul was not the only one out there. His letters just really hit the core of the message, which is likely why much of them were included in the NT and not some other letters like the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. Christianity could have survived without St. Paul, but it's obvious that the impact of St. Paul on Western civilization can't be ignored.

 

[The Mists Of Time]

What was Jesus' main theological message by the way? Which of the conflicting and mutually exclusive philosophies do you think is the legimate one?

I don't think we really know for certain, or that we ever really will know. I think the early Church took Jesus' main theological message or messages, His teachings, His philosophy, and twisted them around to say what The Church needed and wanted them to say to serve The Church's own purposes.

When I say "The Church" I mean the human beings, the men who headed and ran The Church here on Earth.

I think that probably happened to such an extent that Jesus' real theological message or messages, teachings, philosophy, words, etc are probably lost to us, probably forever.

What we are left with is what The Church wanted Jesus to say, what The Church wanted Jesus' message, teaching, philosophy, etc to be because it served The Church's purposes and needs, regardless of what Jesus' real message, teaching, etc were.

Paul's efforts were what pushed The Church and Christianity to become as widespread and as powerful as it did in its early decades. Ironically had it not been for Paul, The Church and Christianity in the secular world probably would not have become as powerful as it did, in which case, we might today know a lot more about what Jesus really did say, what His message, teachings, philosophy, etc really were.

 

[freodhoric]

I don't think we really know for certain, or that we ever really will know. I think the early Church took Jesus' main theological message or messages, His teachings, His philosophy, and twisted them around to say what The Church needed and wanted them to say to serve The Church's own purposes.

When I say "The Church" I mean the human beings, the men who headed and ran The Church here on Earth.

I disagree on the grounds that many of the teachings in the New Testament are opposed to the political or monetary gain that is dear to the hearts of greedy men the world over. The disparity between what the Bible said and what the Church did was what gave rise to the Reformation.

I also disagree because the letters and such that make up the New Testament were written before Christianity gained the power and prestige that it had in later years. In other words, before Constantine, anyone looking to become rich or powerful went elsewhere.

 

[MarkA]

MarkA, I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that Paul's message was so different from James, Peter and the rest of Jesus original followers. The earliest reliable evidence doesn't indicate this at all. There were certainly issues of contention between Paul and the others, but not so deep as you're saying.

I agree that Jesus divinity was far from accepted at this early stage, even by Paul. The church was still struggling with just who Jesus was. It obviously wasn't really ironed out for another 3 centuries. The theologians in Antioch and Alexandria were caught up in debate for a long time about Jesus human/divine nature and the concept of the Trinity. The councils of Nicea and Chalcedon finally put the conclusions in writing, but there were still minor branches of the church that were unsure.

Well the so-called Jewish Christians, headed by Jesus's brother James and including all the disciples, still followed Jewish law and customs. Paul most certainly did not. Therefore, some christians say that the differences were only legalistic. However, the differences were much deeper than that.

Later the desposynos accepted Jesus as the Messaih according to Pope Sylvester so the original family probably did too. But also according to later writers, they were tainted by the heresy of Arian and so did not accept his divinity. Not surprising if they were his family I suppose.

As for Peter being 'converted' by Paul to accepting the latters' belief in who Jesus was, the evidence increasingly leans towards this being a myth. Peter, like other ambassadors of the Jewish Christians apparently followed Paul through the Med. trying to undo what he had done in the communities. So far from being a follower or fellow traveller of Paul's, Peter was an opponent. This is backed up by early church traditions and writings of the Church Fathers who called Paul the apostle to the heretics.

I must disagreewith your statement about Paul not beingsure if Jesus was divine. I think his writings show him to be absolutely sure Jesus was some divine being.

 

[MarkA]

St. Paul had a significant impact on Christianity. All one has to do is read his letters. It's also important to note that different interpretations of St. Paul's letters is what gets you sola fide, a major pillar of Lutheranism. St. Paul was not the only one out there. His letters just really hit the core of the message, which is likely why much of them were included in the NT and not some other letters like the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch. Christianity could have survived without St. Paul, but it's obvious that the impact of St. Paul on Western civilization can't be ignored.

My argument is that his letters did not in fact hit the point of Jesus' message but rather let people belive in a demi god of the famliar Hellenistic variety so that the message was what they wanted to hear.

The reason they were included in the NT was because Marcion, the heretic who put together the first bible, included them and Ireneaus could not leave them out because they had become too popular and too central to the mystical beliefs in the eastern churches.

 

[Dearnen]

I agree that Paul recognized Jesus as some kind of nearly-divine being. But it is less certain that he actually equated Jesus with God. He certainly recognized that Christ was higher than any angel and instrumental in the work of creation. He recognized that Jesus was the perfect image of God. But making that next step of seeing the image as the equal and same substance as God took the early church a long time. It's easy for us to see the logic of the step, but even with the divine intervention by Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul's deeply Jewish background would have made it an incredibly hard step.

Arianism was a later heresy that did not believe in the divinity of Christ. The early church was certainly filled with people that saw things that way.

I also don't think Paul in any way converted Peter, and none was necessary. Their core theological understanding of the Gospel and Jesus teachings were the same. The difference came in their view of how Jewish the Gospel and its adherents needed to be.

The writings of Paul and Luke had been well circulated and accepted long before Marcion saw fit to reject everything else as too Jewish. While the compiling of documents into a single unit was certainly influenced by Marcion, they were already popular in the church. Likewise the four gospels. Ireneaus and the other church fathers were not opposed to Paul's works and quoted from them extensively, despite Marcion's influence.

 

[MarkA]

Dearnen, I agree with much of what you say.

Just note the rapidity of theological development in the first century of christianity. Clement did not call Jesus god but in the next generation of leaders Ignatius did.

My point about Arianism was that the remnants of the Jewish Christians the desposynos, who Sylvester recognised as the physical rather than spiritual family of Jesus, were eventually absorbed into the heretical sects rather than the orthodox community and were accused by Eusebius (I think) but certainly by contempories of his of being Arianist sympathisers. This certainly implies a strong piece of evidence that the Jewish Christians did not regard Jesus as divine.

As for Paul and Peter being in agreement, as I posted the evidence seems to point to Peter and the other disciples following Paul and trying to undo what he had done. There was of course no 'conversion' but not because there was no need to do so but because it did not happen. Peter was the model for Roman orthodoxy and Paul the 'hero' of the Gnostics. But this was due to the political divide of the factions vying for control as much as the individuals' theology.

It is interesting to note that Peter was the model for the very early christian orthodox in Rome while Paul became acceptable only in the second generation. For example, Clement uses Paul's letters to bolster orthodox belief while the earliest grafitti in the catacombs shows Peter in exclusively Old Testament scenes and Paul not at all in orthodox areas but only in Gnostic drawings discovered only in the last twenty years.

 

[MarkA]

Ireneaus said there were four gospels because it was the natural order of the cosmos like the four winds, four seasons, four corners of the earth etc. His rejection of Marcion had really nothing to do with the point of this thread since they both recognised Paul's legitimacy.

My point is that Paul did not reflect Jesus' original message any more than the later generation of gospel writers who were reflecting thier contemorary theological positions. Indeed, they seem to have no idea of Palestine in Jesus' time or of an actual historical context at all.

 

[Dearnen]

The Gnostics certainly grabbed on to Paul's teachings (as other heretics would use what appealed to them - the wonder of the Bible is that it contains such variety yet remains consistant), and i agree with a lot of what your saying as well. I just question the degree of separation between Paul and Peter in regards to the Gospel itself. Neither Peter nor Paul had what we would consider a fully fleshed-out concept of either Christ's dual nature or the Trinity. It is most likely that they were still figuring things out and had an understanding of Christ as the eschatological son of God as portrayed in various non-biblical Jewish apocolyptic writings of the period.

I am unware of evidence that suggests Paul's views were of a rogue nature compared to the church in Jerusalem and that Peter was following him around trying to fix things. Paul himself had to go back (in writing if not person) to correct false understandings in places he had brought the Gospel. Perhaps Peter was not correcting Paul's errors, but errors about Paul.

 

[MarkA]

A good point about Peter may have been trying to correct wrong interpretations of Paul in the churches except that Peter was sent out by the Jerusalem church who were opposed to Paul. I would have thought the evidence about the animosity between Paul and the family and followers of Jesus was conclusive. Even if you accept the minimalist position of a disagreement about adherence to the Law they were still in opposition.

By the way, how does a contradictory position on the importance of Jewish Law become a 'minor' disagreement between Peter and Paul? I cannot think of a more fundamental difference even in contemporary belief.

If you are correct about Peter and Paul still trying to flesh out the christian theological position on the nature of Jesus I tend to agree with you. That is, it is a curious position that the son of god should be an obscure figure to his contempories particularly when they are charged with spreading the gospel.

 

[Dearnen]

On the contrary, the Gospel writers appear to show excellent knowledge about Palestine. This is especially true of Luke, a second generation believer and follower of Paul. Though Greek, he goes out of his way to be geographically and historically correct. Matthew, who like Luke was reliant on Mark (second Generation follower of Peter), clearly demonstrates an understanding of Palestine as well as the Jewish faith.

The fact that Matthew and Luke rely on Mark (as well as Q) indicates an early circulation of gospel writings. By the time of Ireneaus the 4-fold Gospel was so strongly accepted in the Church that he could hold them up on the same level as the four winds, the four corners of the earth, etc. Yet, it's also clear that there was enough question about using the 4 that he felt the need to make the argument. It is important to note that this was very early in church history. Although the gospels were written later than Paul's letters, they were not much later. Certainly within the lifetime of some of the original witnesses (especially if Matthew and John were the Apostles that tradition holds - likewise if Mark was a young disciple of Jesus).

In any case, there is still much debate about the issues we are discussing and not enough certainty among scholars about some of the points you have made. The question of Paul's teachings being alien to the Jerusalem church's views is far from settled.