Jane H

Paul does refer to Jesus teaching. The account of the eucharistic narrative; “According to the Lord's own word” 1 Thess 4:15; and divorce- 1 Corinthians 7:10 (contrast verse 12) are the first three off the shelf. For a fuller account, and an excellent cure for insomnia, try David Wenham:

Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (or via: amazon.co.uk)


Paul’s vision on the way to Damascus revealed to him where Jesus fitted into the Grand Scheme Of Things, but the rest came from the OT, God’s action (e.g. in accepting the gentiles Acts 10:44), Jesus teaching as passed down etc…Paul did have conflict with the apostles over e.g. the role of Torah, but this is entirely what you would expect under the social and ethnic circumstances. Were the conflict not there, it would be simply unbelievable- the NT is acting as a reliable historical document in that respect. BTW I’m not making any assumptions about Pauline books beyond the Hauptbriefe.

I meant Matthew 10:37 “"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me“. Apologies for the typo! Hopefully that makes the point on the verse crystal clear.

I think you‘ve missed my point on “miseo”. It can have the meaning of “hate“, but it has a much wider range of meaning, and in Koine is a comparative rather than absolute. Thus BDAG: ”to have a strong aversion to, hate, detest, to be disinclined to, disfavor, disregard, in contrast to preferential treatment”. Matthew 6:24/Luke 16:13, Romans 9:13, John12:25 are all examples of this. Again, the Jewish idiomatic context is Genesis 29:31, and the context of the passage in Luke tells conclusively of ‘having to lose’ rather than ‘wanting to kill’. My reading also…makes sense.

Your three “challenge” quotes certainly work as “disown”, as my interpretation goes.

BTW, my reading is mainstream commentary fare.

Once again, the only sensible interpretation is, “Are you ready to be rejected by your family if necessary?”. In the religious ferment that was C1 Israel, as in many places now, people would know exactly what Jesus meant by his saying.

bacht

from wiki:

Cynicism and Christianity

Historical Jesus as a Jewish Cynic
Many historians have noted the similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus and those of the Cynics. Some scholars have argued that the Q document, the hypothetical common source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke, has strong similarities with the teachings of the Cynics. Scholars on the quest for the historical Jesus, such as Burton L. Mack and John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, have argued that 1st century Galilee was a world in which Hellenistic ideas collided with Jewish thought and traditions. The city of Gadara, only a day's walk from Nazareth, was particularly notable as a center of Cynic philosophy, and Mack has described Jesus as a "rather normal Cynic-type figure." For Crossan, Jesus was more like a Cynic sage from an Hellenistic Jewish tradition than either a Christ who would die as a substitute for sinners or a Messiah who who wanted to establish an independent Jewish state of Israel. Other scholars doubt that Jesus was deeply influenced by the Cynics, and see the Jewish prophetic tradition as of much greater importance.

Cynic influences on early Christianity
Many of the ascetic practices of Cynicism were undoubtably adopted by early Christians, and Christians often employed the same rhetorical methods as the Cynics. Some Cynics were actually martyred for speaking out against the authorities. One Cynic, Peregrinus Proteus, lived for a time as a Christian before converting to Cynicism, whereas in the 4th century, Maximus of Alexandria, although a Christian, was also called a Cynic because of his ascetic lifestyle. Christian writers would often praise Cynic poverty, although they scorned Cynic shamelessness: Augustine stating that they had, "in violation of the modest instincts of men, boastfully proclaimed their unclean and shameless opinion, worthy indeed of dogs." The ascetic orders of Christianity also had direct connection with the Cynics, as can be seen in the wandering mendicant monks of the early church who in outward appearance, and in many of their practices were little different from the Cynics of an earlier age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynic

grip_daddy

Exactly. I was thinking of how else those who heard Jesus could have interpreted his teachings. Who is a reliable source to speak to us on the significance of his message? I would go for John the Apostle. Why?

John is said to have been the most beloved; someone whose head leaned on Jesus' chest most of the time during the earthly ministry of JC. When we read the gospel according to John, we find a gospel filled with love, soft voice, and welcoming speeches.

John himself wrote three letters and his message in the letters were very clear; love one another and obey the commandments of Jesus Christ. The commandments of Jesus Christ are again phrased, "love one another".

When figuring out how best Jesus' audience could have understood his messages, I thought of my own native language. When reading the gospel of John, twice Jesus calls his mother "woman". The term woman, if used in my language has a lot of negative connotations. A man calling his wife a "woman" signifies a master relating to a slave. Women were traditionally treated as slaves of their husbands. The only man, therefore, who called his wife "woman" instead of "mother of my child (insert name)" was a man who vehemently hated the wife.

I was now imagining how I as a son could call my own mother a "woman". That, according to the OT, could mean that I should be stoned to death. "Whoever shall hate his parents shall be put to death", the bible says. But Jesus called his mother a "woman".

Jesus referring to his mother as a woman cannot, therefore, be read in the mirror of my native language else we will demand his execution. When reading Jesus commandments, it is important that we lay importance to the context of his culture and the then traditions, taking into account the perception of his audience.

Sheshbazzar

Three Jane? three references? out of how many -hundreds- of verses?
And then even each of these suffer from the same problem, very little if any, are actually quotations from "the Lord's own word", but are "Paul's" <sic> words which "he" attributes to "the Lord."
If "Paul" <sic> really had any respect for "the Lord's OWN word" he would have quoted it as the Lord gave it, and built his explaination around that known, given word, not resorting to the invention of his own improved versions of "the Lord's own word".
The evidence throughout all of "Paul's" <sic> writings indicate that at the time of their original writing, "Paul" did not -have- any written Gospels to draw from.
The Gospels were latter fabrications by church writers fraudulently writing under pseudonym's to provide supporting documents for their latter developed beliefs, then these latter ideas were quite crudely inserted into the earlier "Pauline" epistles, making "Paul" write hundreds of verses, and a half dozen or more entire books in his name, that the real Paul never actually wrote.

There is nothing in any of these church forged and doctored writings of "Paul" <sic> that is trustworthy; the church's filthy fingerprints are clearly visible on every single page, making them tampered evidence, unworthy of any admissibility.


A church fabricated fairy-tale, with perhaps a little of the original Paul the Philosophers writing, adapted and extensively interpolated to fit into the church writers fabricated story.

Of course, every religious liar likes to go back and rip off Moses and the Prophets to make-up, prove, support, and to give an appearance of legitimacy to their fabricated creations. The Quran, and The Book of Mormon do the same thing, do you also believe in the characters and claims in these?

No Jane, if "Paul" was a legitimate Apostle, it is -exactly- what you should NOT expect, if you are to believe "the Lord's OWN word", rather than pseudo-Paul's writings.

The Lord "Jesus" hand-picked and chose his own Apostles, they were his close personal companions all during his ministry, they walked with him, ate with him, traveled with him, talked with him face to face, questioned him, and heard what he had to say; day and night, day after day, for years.
Yet you, by way of "Paul", imply and teach that these did not know or understand "The Lord's own word" as well as "Paul" and yourself.

Now Look at, and consider what the Lord said; Even The Lord's OWN word";
The Lord speaking His OWN word to his chosen Apostles.
The Lord speaking His OWN word to his chosen Apostles.
The Lord speaking His OWN word to his chosen Apostles.
The Lord speaking His OWN word to his chosen Apostles.
....gee, one might wonder where "Paul" was.

And a little further evidence of the way of the original Apostles;
da-de-da-de-da-de-da-de-da-da....
And THEN;
Now, we have Saul who become Paul, does he agree with the "ALL THINGS" held and believed by the original Apostles? those teachings that they had directly recieved from "the Lord's OWN word"? and were confirmed on The Day of Pentecost with signs, and with the filling of the promised Holy Spirit?

No way! Not "Paul"! for -he- claims that by having recieved a "vision" (notably one that he -alone- of all men, sees) he has recieved an authority greater than that of Jesus' chosen Apostles, and begins to over-ride them, and preach doctrines that they did NOT hold nor preach.

There is simply no way, if "Paul" was a legitimate apostle, that he would be having -ANY- doctrinal conflicts with these authorised, and legitimate original Apostles, who were ALL, until "Paul" shows up, of "ONE ACCORD" (Acts 2:46)
Paul's conflict and conduct "is entirely what you would- NOT, and SHOULD NOT- expect, (nor accept)- under ANY circumstances,"
Unless- "Paul's" real purpose was to undermine the beliefs of the true and original Apostolic faith by the deliberate perverting and dismissal of "The Lord's OWN word", and his supplanting of the teachings, and the given authority of the original Apostles.

No Jane, because the conflict IS there, -WHEN IT SHOULD NOT BE THERE- "Paul's" preaching is shown to be contrary to "the Lord's OWN word" and it is "Paul's words that are unbelievable.

No Jane, the NT is revealing itself as a collection of corrupted and fabricated church writings that cannot be trusted.

Says a lot Jane.
If you want to fall for the deception, who can stop you?
You can play "word games" all you like Jane, but,
Why, if it is Gods will "that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" would the writings contain words and phrases that not only allow for easy "misunderstandings", but actually seem to be chosen to be most obscure in meaning so that they invite and actually are the cause of these "misunderstandings"?

As I said before, a better choice of words, words that are unmistakable, and clearly articulated so as to be easily understood, could have been provided from the beginning if "God" really "so loved the world", "and desired that none should perish".

It is an ethical problem with the type of God that you are positing, as one allegedly knowing all things from beginning to end, He would foreknow all the problems that he would be creating, by the using of obscure or questionable words and phrases to convey his will.
Thus if he so foreknows, yet still employs, he is thus willfully engaged in perpetrating a deliberate deception, to wilfully cause humans to fail.
Not an act indicative of a truly compassionate and loving God.

You belong to a divided religion for that very cause, as no two sects can ever agree on what every text means or what is required.
Evidently then, by him causing such questionable words and texts to exist, your God IS the author of this confusion.
But if you look back to Acts 2:46, before "Paul" arrived, they were ALL of "ONE accord", certainly not a description of Pauline Christianity as it has operated since that day to this.

Sheshbazzar

And yet you reject John's witness, and his beliefs to accept "Paul's".
And perhaps So heard and so taught the Apostles John, James, Peter, Matthew, Luke and all of the others who in the unity of the faith kept "The Lord's OWN word"; To do it.
But "Paul" withstood their teachings, preaching his own gospel, the easy way, forsake the Law, and The commandments of The LORD, and give lip service instead.
The prognosis does not look good.


eta. I don't know how that "angry" smilie got on here, as I almost never employ smilies, and I did not intend to here.
If, however, I were to choose one it would be the "sad" one.

bacht

Yes, but these could be "Christian prophecy" from the risen Lord rather than instructions passed on from witnesses to an earthly Jesus. The Essenes had similar communal meals, and were scrupulous in interpreting the Torah, so I don't think there's a basis for claiming originality anyway.

As Sheshbazzar says, there is precious little reference to any earthly teaching or activity of Jesus in Paul's writings. Mythicists claim that the few references we find can be interpreted in different ways (eg. "son of David" or "born of woman").

show_no_mercy

lol unless you're a Jew

bacht

no kidding

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.
1 John 2:22-23

That would be God the Father, who made the covenant with Moses?

Don't want to get on the bad side of these folks...

Sheshbazzar

I missed one
Again, "the Lord's OWN word", addressed to the original Apostles, of whom He himself bears witness, saying "you have been with me from the beginning".
And the saying; "And you also shall bear witness.." is directed specifically at these original Apostles, predicting and declaring that -THEY- (not "Paul")
would be the ones (authorised) to bear the witness to all of what He had said, done, and taught.
And these are those Apostles of the Lord, that "Paul" latter resists, opposes, and argues against, with his no-law, lip-service, opposition "gospel".

Jane H

Not really. The Eucharist account was specifically “passed on“, and is recorded in varying forms in the Gospels. 1 Corinthians 7:10 also comes in variant forms in the Gospels. As for 1 Thess 4:15, the same idioms are used in 1 Thess 4:16 as in Matt 24:30,31,40,41.

(I’m not a fan of rapture teaching!!!!)