Kelly

These people can define an issue...

“If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they need look no further than Paul”
-- The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

“We have already noted that every teaching of Jesus was already in the literature of the day….. Paul, the founder of Christianity, the writer of half the NT, almost never quotes Jesus in his letters and writings." Professor Smith in his “The World Religions”, p 330

“Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ…..Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ.” Will Durant, Philosopher

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference."--Bishop John S. Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark. Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991

"I have inquired into some of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; the examination has led me to the conclusion that the dogmas of the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, the Divine-Sonship, the Original Sin and Atonement are neither rational nor in conformity with the teachings of Jesus. These dogmas came into being and were due to pagan influences. They show that Christianity has departed considerably from the religion of Jesus. " Alhaj A.D. Ajijola, The Myth of the Cross

"This mysterious disappearance of Jesus could certainly be put to an advantageous purpose. Moreover, it was commonly known that Jesus was born of a virgin mother though many were skeptical about it. Paul turned all these ideas to his own advantage and concocted the theory of sonship. " - ibid, Alhaj A.D. Ajijola

"Where possible he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord." - Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, p. 171

"What kind of authority can there be for an 'apostle' who, unlike the other apostles, had never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus' own school but had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis on his own authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus....He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears." -Ferdinand Christian Baur, Church History of the First Three Centuries

"Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism." - Hyam Maccoby, Paul: The Mythmaker and the Invention of Chrisianity, p. 16

"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."- George Bernard Shaw

spamandham

I think he is stretching all the way back to Moses. Recall from our discussion of Gal. 3, that Paul explicitly identifies God giving his promise to two individuals, Abraham, and Christ.

Paul's theology involves two paths, both of which involve faithfulness to God. Faithfulness to God is what it's all about to Paul. However, the expression of that faith takes multiple forms; a Jewish form rooted in the promise to Abraham which certainly includes the Jerusalem Jews (and in Romans 10 seems to include all Jews who are faithful to God as well), and a gentile form rooted in the promise to the "Seed" (the Seed of Gal 3, which is Christ).

He is saying that. In Paul's theology, Christ's crucifixion/resurrection is necessary. If not for that, gentiles would be lost altogether, and Jews would be imprisoned by the law. But it the act of Christ that brings the salvation, not the act of those saved.

Paul's gospel saves Jew and Greek alike, but that does not mean Jews must accept Paul's gospel. Jews are still heirs to the promise given to Abraham, as long as they abide by their covenant of faith in God. The Jerusalem sect, through devotion to Christ (regardless of the details of that devotion) are saved through both the first and 2nd promise. Non-Christian Jews who are faithful to God and not merely wrapped up in the legalism of the law, are saved by the 1st promise. And of course, believers in Paul's gospel are saved by the 2nd promise.

What matters here, is that you find it ingenious. That's got to be worth a beer.

I agree.

You know, this quits being fun if we agree too much.

I don't think it's important if money changed hands at that very moment. It's clear an agreement was met in which it would. I'm being a bit sloppy and equating the agreement with the actual exchange.

No apology necessary, the subject hasn't really explicitly come up until recently and I can certainly see why you would assume that.

It seems clear to me, that the resurrection is Paul's innovation, which means that the theological implications of the crucifixion are also Paul's, which is why I refer to it as his crucifixion/resurrection gospel. I have yet to form a position as to whether the Jerusalem sect believed in the crucifixion as a matter of cold fact.

Sorry that it came across that way. I had hoped to make it clear that the Jews in the wilderness were faithful to God from Paul's perspective. It is faith in God which Paul considers central; though that faith may be expressed in multiple ways.

I haven't formed an opinion on whether or not they believed in a crucified messiah.

However, an analysis of Paul's writings says to me, that if they did, they did not see any theological significance to it like Paul does, and did not promote the same crucifixion/resurrection gospel as Paul.

Toto

Kelly's digression has been split off here

Ben C Smith

Well, Robert, I must say I have enjoyed the exchange. I hope it did not weary you too very much. We simply disagree on some very basic Pauline points.

Godspeed to you.

Ben.

ETA: I am still thinking through your bit about Pauline universalism and Jews being saved by Jesus without even knowing about him.

spamandham

Thanks Ben. It's been a pleasure as always, even though we often (usually?) disagree, and I think we probably are at an impasse on this one.

While pondering it, keep in mind though, that the bit you refer to still requires faith in the mind of Paul. Not all Jews are saved, just the ones who are faithful to God in the way he sees necessary to obtain the promise made to Abraham.

DCHindley

Perhaps this requires a separate thread, but I do not believe that one modern author who should be relevant to this discussion has been brought up at all.

I refer to Dr Mark Nanos, author of The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter (Fortress: 1996) and The Irony of Galatians: Paul's Letter in First-Century Context (Fortress:2002), and edited The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation (Hendrickson: 2002).

Mark earned a PhD, I believe in Judaic Studies, under Philip Esler in 2000 (University of St. Andrews, Scotland. He had retired as President of Nanos & Gray, Inc., Advertising and Graphic Design, in 1997. His perspective is unique, as he is Jewish (Reformed), yet concentrates on Jewish-Gentile dialogue in early Christianity, especially Paul's time.

http://www.marknanos.com/

Since his area of interest is early Christian origins he considers himself a "respectful guest" in the discipline and as a result does not slash & burn the NT. He does find a way to untangle the statements in Romans & Galatians, understanding Paul as both a faithful Jew and a Christ-believing Jew.

While I do not agree with this conclusion (my "Paul" was not in touch with early Christianity at all, and the Christ language was added after the fact), I will say that he has, IMHO, advanced study on the relationship between gentile Christ believers and their Jewish counterparts, and with Judaism in general, as portrayed in the received editions of Romans & Galatians, further than anyone else has accomplished to date.

I can't speak for him, but I believe that if discussion is kept at a relatively high, and mutually respectful, level, Mark might be willing to carry on a dialogue here.

Ben, Andrew, Spam, Spin, etc, might find his positions educational and thought provoking.

DCH

bacht

Is there too much focus on the double advent idea? What I mean is, why couldn't Paul's gospel have simply been The Parousia, the (first) advent of the Christ and the accompanying New Age? The revelations to him and other apostles could simply have been this idea, that the time was near. Whatever they saw or heard or discovered in scripture would have been the preamble to the big event (eg. the Transfiguration in 2 Peter).

If death itself was soon to be eliminated, would this inspire Paul to include gentiles in his audience?

Ben C Smith

Galatians 3.16-19:

16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say: And to seeds, as referring to many, but rather to one: And to your seed, that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this; the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. 19 Why the law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made.

Galatians 4.4-5:

4 But, when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth [past tense] his son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 so that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Romans 1.3-4:

3 ...[the gospel] concerning his son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord....

Paul never calls the first coming an advent or parousia, but he certainly thinks that Christ (the seed) came in the past.

Ben.

bacht

Okay, but in the epistles isn't the work of God beyond normal time and space (the death of Christ at the hands of the Archons)? My impression is that only the revelation or understanding of the divine plan is historically datable (ie. 1st C)

spamandham

If all we had were the genuine letters of Paul (minus all the obvious interpolations), would we even know Paul was referring to a man of his recent history?