TedM

Ok, let me tell you the differences that I think existed between Paul's gospel and Jesus'.

In Mark, Jesus taught the following things:

His authority
Evil spirits and sicknesses are under his power Many places
He forgives sins 2:6
I came not to call the righteous, but sinners 2:17
His coming is good news--cause for celebration 2:19
He is the Son of Man 2:28, 8:38, 9:9, 10:45, 14:61
He is Lord of the sabbath, allowed to transgress certain Jewish laws 2:28, 3:4
My family are those that do God’s will 3:34
Faith in him leads to healing of sickness 5:34, 10:52
A prophet is not honored in his own country, among his own family 6:
Elijah did come first 9:13
I came to serve 10:45
I came to give my life as a ransom for many 10:45, 14:24
He is the Christ 14:61

The kingdom of God, what is it like, and how to be a part of it
Kingdom of God is at hand: 1:14, 2:19, 4:29
The kingdom of God is a secret 4:10, 4:31
The secret will become known 4:22
Repent 1:14
Believe in the gospel 1:14
Leave everything and follow me 1:17, 10:29
Those who accept the word and reject the world and its riches and temptation from Satan will be greatly rewarded. This is very hard for the rich. 4:20, 10:23
For his disciples: Dress simply and stay in one place per town when traveling and preaching 7:9-10
As you give, more will be given in return 4:24
Those who don’t have (who don’t give) will lose what they have 4:24
To follow me, deny yourself, and you will save your life 8:34
If you deny me, I’ll deny you when I return with God and the Angels 8:38
To be first in his kingdom,you must be last, a servant. 9:35 , 10:31, 10:43
Those who honor an innocent child, honor him and God 9:37
Those who aren’t against the kingdom but support it, are for it and will be rewarded 9:40-41
Do whatever it takes to avoid sin and to avoid tempting others to sin 9:32
The kingdom of God is not a place for sinners 9:47, 10:14
Those not in the kingdom of God will be in hell 9:47
Be pure inside 9:50
Be at peace with others 9:51
Forgive those you resent when you pray 11:25

The importance of faith
Faith overcomes fear 4:40, 5:36
Faith in him leads to healing of sickness 5:34, 10:52
All things are possible to him who believes 9:23
Certain illnesses require prayer for healing 9:29
Do things and ask for things of God with faith, and you will receive them 11:24

The law and traditions
Follow God’s commandments to Moses 1:44, 10:19
He is Lord of the sabbath, allowed to transgress certain Jewish laws 2:28, 3:4
Follow God’s commandments to Moses 1:44, 10:19
Keeping God’s main commandments are more important that laws of tradition which contradict those commandments 7:9
Nothing outside a man defiles him (all foods are clean), but what comes out of a man’s heart defiles him 7:15,22
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees 8:15
Even though Moses allowed for divorce, divorce is not part of God’s plan 10:11
Don’t dishonor God’s temple with money-dealing 11:17
The greatest commandment is to love your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength 12:29
The 2nd greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself 12/31
The 2 greatest commandments are much more important that burnt offerings and sacrifices 12:33
Those that seek approval with false godly piety will pay more than others 12:40
Those who give all to the treasury are honored more than those who give a smaller proportion 12:43


Teachings about Gentiles
He came primarily for the Jews 7:24-30
Since Jews reject him they will be destroyed and the kingdom will be given to others 12:10
The gospel will be preached to all nations 13


Teachings about the future
I will make you become fishers of men 1:17
He will be taken away 2:20
No sign from heaven will be given to ‘this generation’ 8:11
He will be killed, and rise again 8:31, 9:9-11, 9:31, 10:34
Some will not taste death before seeing the kingdom of God 9:1
Jews will reject him 12:7
The temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed 13:2
Earthquakes, wars, famines will come 13
False prophets will come 13
His followers will be persecuted, hated, families will be divided as a result 13
Those who endure persecution will be saved 13
A sacrilege will be set up where it should be (the temple) 13
After the persecution He will return in the air with angels to gather his elect, within a generation 13
No one knows the day or hour, but God for the return, but be ready 13:32-33
After I’m raised I’ll go to Galilee before you 14:28


Other teachings
A house divided cannot stand 3:24
All sins will be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 3:28
No one is good but God alone 10:18
With God all things are possible 10:27
The dead are resurrected, but will be like angels, and not be or get married 12:24


As you can see, Jesus taught about many things. Of note for the purposes of this discussion are the teachings about how to get into the kingdom: repent, believe, love others, deny self and follow Jesus. While twice Jesus says he came to give his life for others (10:45, 14:24), it clearly was not a centerpiece of his teachings in Mark. 3 times he tells his disciples he will be crucified and rise, but they didn't seem to understand what rising meant (see 9:32). Note also the lack of any emphasis on a message of salvation to the Gentiles.

Even in the Gospel of John Jesus doesn't seem to spell out the theology that he will die for the many. Rather the emphasis is on faith in him and his message of purity: 5:24 "..he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgement, but has passed from death to life."


Paul's epistles echo many of these teachings--enough for folks like Vorkosigan to claim that Mark relied on Paul for his portrayal of Jesus. Paul may attribute a few teachings to Jesus depending on whether "Lord" refers to Jesus or not.

In any case, here's how I see Paul's message: Paul wasn't alive when Jesus was on earth, though he likely heard the teachings of the man whose followers he persecuted after the man's death. Even so, until Paul's conversion, the teachings meant little to Paul since he believed the man was now dead. He likely had heard many of them in his own studies, and probably agreed with quite a few of them, however it wasn't the power of the teachings that converted Paul. Rather it was an appearance or revelation of the resurrected Jesus that converted him. Paul suddenly saw the scriptures in a new light. Paul was a thinker. He asked himself "what is the purpose of a crucified and resurrected Messiah"? The answer had to do with Jesus becoming a passover sacrifice for sins. It was accepted by God because Jesus was pure and sinless. As such, God's gift in return was to reverse the curse of Adam's sin, which was death. Jesus was the first to be resurrected, enabling believers to follow in resurrection. To Paul THAT was the real purpose of Jesus' life! Teachings were important, but paled in comparison to the meaning of the resurrection. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15:14 "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." and 1 Cor 2:2 "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

However, as we see from GMark and even John, the meaning of the rising of the dead was nearly a non-existent part of Jesus' teachings. THAT'S why Paul's gospel of salvation was different than Jesus' message of salvation. Paul may have well-known from his 15 day visit with Peter that Jesus didn't openly teach about salvation through his resurrection, or if he had the disciples and no one else "got it".

Paul had an even grander vision for the kingdom of heaven than Jesus' disciples. He was convinced through revelation that Jesus' act of redemption applied to ALL men, and not just the Jews. Yet, again, we find little in GMark (more in GJohn) to indicate that Jesus taught a message of salvation which included Gentiles.

No wonder Paul was viewed with such suspicion! No wonder he said others were teaching a different gospel or maybe even another Jesus. Paul's Jesus was risen. The importance of Paul's Jesus was his having been raised. This was what made Paul stand out from the other apostles. It is no wonder that he had to rely so heavily on scripture to support his message of salvation for all. It simply was a different message than the disciples ever quite "got" from the teachings of Jesus himself.

I hope this better explains why I say that Jesus didn't come to earth to deliver the message of Paul's gospel. Jesus said "walk in the light and follow me". Paul said "this is what Jesus' death and resurrection mean". Big difference.

ted

NOGO

Yes he was. Paul was studying in Jerusalem when Jesus suposedly came to Jerusalem to die.

You seem to say that there is something fundamentally different between what the Gospels teach and what Paul teaches. Something about salvation.

I do not agree.

First let me say that as a believer you should have a tough time with what you said. Essentially you are saying that Paul was teaching something totally different than what Jesus taught and he got this through inspiration from the risen Jesus. Talk about confusion. Essentially you are saying that Paul created his own religion different than the religion started by Jesus.
Quite an admission for a believer to make.

The center piece of Mark's story of Jesus is his death and resurrection. No Christian would object to this statement. Many of the teachings in the gospels (scholars tell us) were put in Jesus' mouth. If you take away the death and resurrection you are left with nothing.

How is Jesus death and resurrection to be interpreted.
The answer is the Last Supper.
Jesus tells us that by eating his body and drinking his blood Christians are saved. This is of course symbolic and represents the essence of Christianity.

No matter what happened before, this is the begining of Christianity.

Paul teaches exactly the same thing.
He tells his followers about the Lord's Supper and has his people eat the communal meal in rememberance of Jesus' sacrifice.

Jesus' teachings were from later Christian communities and were placed in Jesus' mouth to create an apostolic tradition which would become the definitive Christian theology. This contrasts Paul's who claimed inspiration and therefore differed with other inspired apostles. But the fundamental concept at the start of Christianity was the same as I explained above.

It is just too long here to explain all of the symbology of the Last Supper. Suffice it say again Paul and the Gospels agree on the essential parts.

So the Kingdom was near.
Jesus' death marked the last call, the last generation before the kingdom.
You had to take part in the Lord's Supper to enter the Kingdom, which implied
receiving the Holy Spirit and other things as well.

Paul was running around saving as many as possible because he believed time to be short. The generatiojn would not pass before the Kingdom of God would be upon them.

On all these points the Gospels and Paul agree.
Initially this was the Jews only. Paul and others took this message to the Gentiles.

TedM

I know Paul was alive when Jesus was on earth, so I'm not sure why I wrote that other than fatigue. Thanks for the correction. I should have written: "Paul wasn't a believer when Jesus was on earth."


First, I am more of a former-believer than current one. Nevertheless, I don't think believers should have any problem with it. The Messianic Secret is no Secret Perhaps Jesus didn't go around openly saying "I'm going to be crucified for your sins and then resurrected" because it could have jeapardized his mission (to be crucified and be resurrected in a way that required faith). I don't think believers have any problem with the idea that Jesus said "live right, follow me and believe I am from God". That still applies to Christians, as does Paul's message.


Look at what you just wrote. First, while the goal may have been death and resurrection, I gave about 100 examples that showed that that was NOT the focus of the teachings. You seem to want to dismiss them as not being teachings of Jesus. If you want to dismiss Jesus' teachings as not being his, how can we have a discussion about what Jesus' gospel was at all? I assumed that when you questioned differences between Paul's gospel and Jesus' gospel you were assuming for the sake of argument that legitimacy of the alleged teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels. That's why I chose Mark--it's an early source for the alleged teachings. What is it you think is a valid comparison for purposes of this discussion?


You have chosen instead to ONLY ACCEPT the teaching about his death and resurrection ON THE NIGHT OF HIS BETRAYAL as if that is what we can use to summarize Jesus' teachings, or call "Jesus' gospel", or "Mark's gospel", if you prefer. My approach was to look at what the alleged Jesus' taught and call THAT his gospel. How can we say what Jesus' gospel was if we ignore all of the teachings in his ministry all the way up until the night before he was crucified, when he finally reveals the "bigger picture"?

I'll agree that the Lord's Supper represents the essence of Christianity, and Paul certainly included it too, but in Mark that "essence" wasn't revealed as part of the teachings Jesus' "good news". The "good news" was that the kingdom of God had arrived, but the why and how it was to be manifested and carried out was left to be quite the secret.

Yes, and he attributes the teaching to the "Lord" which is clearly Jesus, since he refers to Jesus as the "Lord" in the Supper passage. So, here we have the clearest essence of Christianity which is revealed in Mark as having been a teaching of Jesus only at the very END of his life--the Lord's Supper--and an attribution by Paul to Jesus--the VERY thing you say Paul doesn't do! Do you see the irony? The only thing you accept as Jesus' gospel that matches Paul's gospel is something Paul DOES attribute to Jesus. Paul doesn't attribute most of his gospel to Jesus (the "how and why" of the sacrifice and resurrection) because to do so would be incorrect because the alleged Jesus didn't teach those things in his ministry. This would only be EVEN MORE SO if Jesus' entire gospel is to be found only in his words at the Lord's Supper.

Which was NOT part of Jesus' gospel while on earth, or if it was it was pretty small. Why else would we need for both Peter and Paul to have specific visions about Gentile acceptance in Acts--and in the case of Paul a specific calling to go to the Gentiles?

ted

Orthodox_Freethinker

What you have created is a false dichotomy between Jesus and Paul. In the Gospels, Jesus teaches of His own death and resurrection and what they mean for the world:

"For even I, the Son of Man, came here not to be served but to serve others, and to give my life as a ransom for many."
Matthew 20:28

"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day."
Matthew 16:21

"And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean."
Mark 9:9-10

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 3:16

TedM

Well, let's take a look...

This was said right before the entry into Jerusalem--days before his death. THough it obviously was important, and he is portrayed as having said it, the late stage in which he says it IMO disqualifies it from being considered a core teaching.

And yet in Mark, 9:32, which you also note, that when he tells them these things again it says "But they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask him." IOW, they didn't get it. Of course that doesn't negate the claim that he did "say" it. But that may in fact have been the case. It is clear that it wasn't something he was trying to get them to understand at that point in time--or else he would have clearly explained it to them. Also note that this is said to have been a teaching only to the disciples--not to the general public.

This says nothing of his death or resurrection. It is a teaching only that they should believe "in him".

I submit that while yes we can find a few examples that look like Jesus taught a gospel of his death and resurrection and its meaning for the removal of sins, and eternal life, the bigger picture doesn't provide much support for this as summary of what his gospel was. Rather we have hundreds of other passages that talk about the kingdom of God, Jesus' authority, faith, the future, helping the poor, living righteously, etc.. IMO THAT was the primary message of Jesus and was the real "gospel" that Jesus taught.

You may note also that I used GMark for comparison because I consider it to most likely reflect his teachings most accurately since it was the earliest, and known to the other gospel writers.

ted

NOGO

You seem to be on the fence wondering.

I am completely comfortable with what I wrote.
The Gospels are a mixed bag of teachings which sometimes contradict.
What do you make of Jesus saying that he did not come to bring peace bu the sword. It is not what goes into a man which make him impure but what comes out, yet elsewhere Jesus says that not one bit of the law will be changed. I could go on but it is pointless. We all know that much if not all of what is attributed to Jesus in the Gospels has been put into his mouth by the writers. That is why Paul and other epistle writers do not mention any of this.

I would need 20 pages or more to do justice to this issue.
What I am looking for is the INITIAL CHRISTIANITY.
In other words what ideas triggered the whole thing.
In summary they would be
a) The coming of the end of the world
b) The kingdom of God
c) The death and resurrection of the Christ
d) The Eucharist


The Kingdom of God and Last Supper are tied intimately and was part of the inital Christian thinking.
If you agree that the Lord's Supper is the essence of early Christianity then you should see that Paul's version came first and was more crude than the Gospel version.
That is why I say that Paul does not quote Jesus because he knows nothing of his teachings if there were any. That is why Paul does not acknowledge Jesus as a revelation of salvation.

The real irony is this.
For Paul the story starts with the Lord's supper while for the Gospels the story ends or beings to end.

For Paul the Kingdom of God starts when Jesus returns.
The Gospels are all over the map on this one. They go as far as saying that the Kingdom is already there.

In GJohn John the Baptist says that while he uses water Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Yet Jesus baptizes no one until after his death.
He blows the spirit onto his disciples. Think of it ... Jesus was with them all that time and they did not receive the Holy Sipirit until after his resurrection.


That is not the way I would put it.
Paul's Gospel is early Christian gospel and it does not come from Jesus.
It comes from scriptures.

I agree that the original Christian Gospel did not include Gentiles.
Paul admits that he found this bit in scriptures.

TedM

I guess I can't figure out what the argument is. I originally said something like Jesus' gospel was different than Paul's gospel. You have agreed with one aspect (a HUGE aspect) when you just wrote:

Great! But, when it comes to Jesus' gospel you seem to deny that Jesus had a gospel because you say the sayings weren't his and that is why Paul didn't attribute them to him. Clearly that is an impasse.. I'm not aware of anyone of the time attributing them to someone else. Is this something you believe there to be strong evidence for?

If not, then is it not possible that many of the sayings were originally from Jesus or that Jesus "borrowed from" existing sayings of the time, and perhaps made them more popular? Obviously I'm assuming Jesus had a gospel in order to compare it to Paul's.

I think in order to get anywhere here, I need to ask you some questions:

Would you agree that IF Jesus had a gospel like that in Mark, it was different than Paul's gospel? If so, would you then agree that those differences provide a reasonable explanation for Paul's gospel to not have been attributed to Jesus (with the exception of the Lord's Supper)? If so, would you then agree that the primary part of Paul's epistles for which we MIGHT expect an attribution to Jesus would consist the sayings that echo teachings of Jesus found in Jesus' gospel? If so, my response is that your expectation is reasonable, but only applies to a small percentage of what Paul actually writes since his gospel and issues pertaining to his readers is what comprises the vast majority of his epistles.

ted

NOGO

Hi Ted,

This subject is vast.
First, I do not believe that many scholars attribute all the items that you have listed to Jesus. In fact I would be inclined to say that most scholars acknowledge that much of that was added later.

How can people put words in Jesus' mouth?
One answer is that this was a common occurance at the time (first and second century). There are obvious epistles like Peter's which are attributed to Peter but are certainly not from The Peter who was supposed to be Jesus' disciple. Certainly the four gospels attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not written by any of them.
So putting words in Jesus' mouth by later authors should not be a surprize.

There is, however, another element here specific to Jesus.
An element which is clearly reflected in Paul's letters and a key element in early Christian thinking.

Paul says that he has the mind of Christ.
The disciples received the holy spirit at pentecost.
Acts tell us that in the final days God would spread his pirit and the people who have it started speaking in tongues saying whatever the spirit would dictate.
Jesus told his disciples not to worry about remembering anything because they would be told what to say.
etc etc.

Basically all the basis for people to speak in Jesus' name (as Paul does) was well established.

Is it then a surprize that people write all sorts of things and attribute them to Jesus?


Paul wrote his letters when this process was in full swing except that no one had yet written it down as soemthing authoritative and definite. Q may have been an early document which assembled all of Jesus' sayings which came from the inspirational route and not from the HJ. It was an inportant step in the production of GMark.

So yes, the original Christian gospel was not meant for anyone but the Jews. Nothing surprizing about that. Paul and others invented this through reading the sriptures. You seem to think that this is a big flaw in my thinking.

As I stated before these are the elements which I think started Christianity or, if you prefer, Christianity started with.
a) The imminent end of the world and the coming of the Kingdom of God.
b) The Eucharist as a means of salvation
c) Jesus' death (not necessarily human death)
d) Jesus' death marks the last generation before the Kingdom.
e) Jesus' resurrection (not necessarily bodily resurrection)
f) Jesus declared son of God.
g) resurrection of the dead and coming of Jesus.

I believe that these appear throughout the NT.

I do not believe that Jesus inagurated the Eucharist and therefore Jesus, if he existed, was not the founder of Christianity. He may have been a man preaching the Kingdom of God in some form or another, or he may have been a man, aspiring to the throne of Israel, who ended up dead.

How do we know what Jesus was all about? Assuming, of course, that he existed. There is so much divergence even between scholars.

The flaw in your thinking is as follows:

You believe that Paul knew the HJ.
BUT and it is a big BUT
Paul, a believer, ignores Jesus' gospel (as found in Mark) and creates his own.
Paul believes that Jesus was sent by God, yet he does not bother with what Jesus had to say. Paul does not preach Jesus' gospel.

I do not buy this.

If there was an historical Jesus then Paul would have accepted his word as the word of God over his own. If you read Paul's letters with this one thought in mind you will see that for Paul there is no HJ.

TedM

Thanks Nogo. Two things come to mind:

1. Do you really think it is strange for Paul to wonder why Jesus had to die? I sure don't. It seems you would expect him to only repeat Jesus' teachings without talking about the cross and resurrection and atonement through it.
And, what words of Jesus would you expect Paul to have expected Paul to accept over his own as it pertains to salvation through the cross?

2. I don't think we can say that Paul didn't bother with what Jesus had to say in Mark. There are echos, as Vork points out. The question is one of attribution. I admit that clear attribution would help enormously, but it isn't there. Yet, the things Jesus had to say are there. But, it is a relatively small part of Paul's message. I explained in the OP why I think that is the case for him personally.

later,

ted