fromdownunder

I posted this on GRD, but it did not fly. I have changed it (marginally) to hopefully fit this forum better.

Why did God need Paul? If Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and most Christians seem to accept that he was, why did Paul have to come along and write numerous letters to Churches who apparently misunderstood part/much/all of the original Jesus "message" and were confused about Jesus purpose within twenty years of his death?

Presumably, Q was around not long after Jesus crucifixion, and would (apart from the disciples) would have been the earliest information available regarding Jesus.

So, why was Jesus message so bungled by the early Jesus follower groups? The had the original disciples, and presumably Q (either written or oral) to tell the "correct" story.

Did God screw up with Jesus sacrifice, subsequently discover that, hey this is not working, I better do something about it, and convert Paul to explain exactly what the purpose of Jesus was in the first place?

Why did God not get it right? Why did Paul need to explain what God's purpose was after Jesus recruited (at least) 12 others to go forth and preach the Gospel, and (for the purposes of this discussion) got the words to preach directly from the source?

I don't want this to degenerate into a HJ, MJ argument. For the sake of the discussion, I am assuming a historical Jesus, Q being around from say 35-40CE, and the Paul canon, with Paul's letters staring around 50CE, the synoptics being written after the fall of Jerusalem, and unknown authors (outside of the letters that can be attributed to Paul).

So many groups seem to have got it all wrong very quickly.

Norm

Joan of Bark

Good question, for which I hope you get SOME response.

ChandraRama

Depending on the researcher/scholar, you would find different answers to these questions.

For example, Mountainman would insist that the entire christianity is 4th century fabrication by Roman Emperor.

Historical scholars and the theological scholars would give different answers depending on the stand (aka assumptions on the gospels). For example, Doherty takes the stand that the Paul is talking about a christ who is high up in the heavens who is crucified and resurrected in some realm. and so on..

aa5874

Once you assume a historical Jesus, you will be plagued with numerous unanswered questions. I will assume a mythical 'Trinity' until your questions are answered by corrobarative information. I do not know if it is possible to know why God, if He exist, does anything.

Doug Shaver

If you ask any number of believers this question, the number of answers you get will equal or exceed that number.

If there is a god, humanity knows zilch about his intentions. That is why believers cannot agree on anything. Everything they think they know about God is just an ad hoc guess, and every believer's guess is just as good as any other believer's.

MagiNoir

Which Jesus would that be? Each story of Jesus is based on a different mythological God. The death and resurrection is obviously based on the sun dieing, being buried underground (in a cave) and then being reborn (resurrected) to ascend glowing into the sky. The Cross symbol is fairly universally a representation of the sun.
The story was written by people who knew the earth was flat and the sun spent the night in the underworld.
His birth is from a totally different myth or myths and there has never been any reason for the 3 wise men for Asia or the symbolism of the gold, and incense.
Why are there no stories of his early life? He did nothing in his twenties.
Paul new the Jesus as a mythical god which was normal in that age. Mythical Gods were quite acceptable to the entire civilised world and Hindus are still quite happy with their gods, like Shiva who is just like the Old Testament god and Brahman is more like the New Testament god and I am sure the Hindus have gods similar to Jesus.

Steven Carr

Why assume 'a' historical Jesus? According to 2 Corinthians 11:4, Christian groups were being told about many historical Jesus's.