Clivedurdle

A major issue with the orthodox theory of xianity is that it imports ideas for example into Paul that may not be there.

What for example is Paul's theory of salvation if we ignore the rest of the New Testament and a myriad preachers and commentators?

arnoldo

Paul has no "theory" on salvation-- rather he preaches Christ crucified as illustrated by the following verse:

show_no_mercy

Read further in 1 Corinthians, Paul spells out his "theory" of salvation:

Paul preached a Christ crucified and resurrected. If there's no resurrection, then there's no salvation since Christ was the "firstfruits" of the resurrection. If Christ had not been resurrected, then their faith in his resurrection means nothing, they are still in their sins. Plus, if there's no resurrection then all they have is "this life" which makes them worse off than all others.

arnoldo

Agreed, however this in no way contradicts what the gospels state thus Paul and the Gospel writers are in agreement on the means towards salvation. Note John 11:25

razlyubleno

Was Paul trying to be so vague on purpose? Surely those letters are just an elaborate practical joke intended to cause supreme consternation to 20th-century scholars and theologians. He just seems to waffle when it comes to theology. When it comes to the application of doctrine, he's fairly straight-forward... But theology? Waffle, waffle, mumble, waffle.

razly

show_no_mercy

There's actually a subtle difference in salvation schemes between Paul, the writers of the Synoptics, and John.

Like I wrote above, Christ's resurrection is what salvation means according to Paul's letter to Corinth.

In the Synoptics, Jesus' sacrifice itself is what salvation is: "the Son of Man must be given up as a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45)

In John, the belief is what saves you, not the actual resurrection... as in what you quoted above.

But the OP only asked what Paul's theology was, not the entire NT.

Juststeve

There is nothing subtle about the difference between Paul and Matthew on the topic of salvation. In Matthew Jesus is repeatedly asked how to be saved and he repeatedly answers the question, by following the Law. In Matthew when Jesus describes the final judgment the sheep and goats are separated based not of their faith but on their works. Paul of course disagrees with Jesus and insists that neither works nor following the law lead to salvation.

Steve

Clivedurdle

This is what I am getting at - how can Paul disagree with a mythical figure?

I thought there were contradictory salvation theologies. This may be further evidence that Jesus is only an invented character.

Assume Paul is first, are the Gospels reactions to the teaching of Paul?

Paul is discussing a heavenly sacrifice and resurrection. The later gospel character Jesus has the beliefs of other cults put on him.

BTW, did Paul call himself a xian? What did he think he was?

Clivedurdle

Is Paul's salvation - by faith are ye saved - an emotional in the head assent to some fantasy about Christ resurrecting in the heavens and that is it?

aa5874

I think that this contradiction helps to illustrate that the writer Paul's theory of salvation must have been after Jesus.

"Paul's theories are later modifications to the Jesus theology as found in gMatthew.

GJohn, also a later modification to gMatthew, based salvation on faith. In effect, Paul theories on theology appears to be contemporary with gJohn.