There was turmoil in the middle of the first century CE among Jesus-believers. According to the words of Paul of Tarsus in a letter to the citizens of Corinth, "For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. I think that I am not the least inferior to those superlative apostles." (2 Cor. 11:4-5)

Clearly, Paul's interpretation of Jesus' message was at odds with that of those who apparently KNEW Jesus up close and personal.

Question: Since, in the letter, we get only Paul's perspective, how do we KNOW that Paul's interpretation of Jesus and his message was "true" and the interpretation of the super apostles was "false"? All we have is one man's word.

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 14, 2001).]

Yes, we have Paulianity. someone said "The Catholic Church is Pauls triumph over Peter, Fundamentalism is Pauls tiumph over Jesus"

Will Durant said something like Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter, Fundamentalism was the triumph of Paul over Jesus.

I would use the words "meaningful/useful" or "not meaningful/not useful" rather than "true" or "false." But that's just me.

History is written by the victors and the Pauline school came out on top with this one.
Paul is so concerned with what Jesus means , he has nothing to say about how the man lived.

There were lots of "Jesuses" floating around orally and textually after the crucifixion--just as there are today. Any commercial bookstore (except the evangelical ones!) have a dazzling array of Jesuses to choose from. The ancient Jesuses who didn't make the canonical cut are dimly visible today. A lot of what we know is found only in the arguments the early church put forth against him. Most of the original texts were put to the torch.

The reference in Corinthians is interesting Rodahi, not only because it has survived, but also shows the possiblity that Pauline Christainity is not necessarily normative.


[This message has been edited by aikido7 (edited April 14, 2001).]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
Question: Since, in the letter, we get only Paul's perspective, how do we KNOW that Paul's interpretation of Jesus and his message was "true" and the interpretation of the super apostles was "false"? All we have is one man's word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

aikido 7: I would use the words "meaningful/useful" or "not meaningful/not useful" rather than "true" or "false." But that's just me.

I used Paul's words, not mine.

rodahi

That is a big leap in logic! You are assuming that the only Apostles were the 12! So because it says "superlative Apostles" than it must mean Peter and the boys. That is by no means the case. Paul calls Apollos an Apsotle, Andronicus and Junia, and the guy who took the collection to Jerusalem. We know from history there were more. The Woman St.Theckla was called an Apostle. The "Judaizers" (Ebionites, Elkassites, and ohters) had Apostles. There were more than just the 12. There is no reason why he has to mean them.

Of course!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
There was turmoil in the middle of the first century CE among Jesus-believers. According to the words of Paul of Tarsus in a letter to the citizens of Corinth, "For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough. I think that I am not the least inferior to those superlative apostles." (2 Cor. 11:4-5)
Clearly, Paul's interpretation of Jesus' message was at odds with that of those who apparently KNEW Jesus up close and personal.

Question: Since, in the letter, we get only Paul's perspective, how do we KNOW that Paul's interpretation of Jesus and his message was "true" and the interpretation of the super apostles was "false"? All we have is one man's word.

rodahi

[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 14, 2001).]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metacrock: That is a big leap in logic! You are assuming that the only Apostles were the 12! So because it says "superlative Apostles" than it must mean Peter and the boys.

Okay, Metacrock, WHO were the "super apostles?" Use the text of the NT and try to be specific.

Metacrock: That is by no means the case. Paul calls Apollos an Apsotle, Andronicus and Junia, and the guy who took the collection to Jerusalem. We know from history there were more. The Woman St.Theckla was called an Apostle. The "Judaizers" (Ebionites, Elkassites, and ohters) had Apostles. There were more than just the 12. There is no reason why he has to mean them.

How does any of this prove anything? There WERE what Paul called "super apostles" preaching a different Jesus, gospel, and spirit from the one he taught. How do you KNOW Paul's interpretation of Jesus and his message was the "true" one and the other was the "false" one? We have Paul's side of the story. WHO speaks for the other side, Metacrock?

rodahi