Jesus Vs Paul

[chrisstavrous]

It's great to see the serious flaws in paul's teaching when comparing it to jesus teaching. But then it's great to see the serious flaws in jesus teaching when comparing it to the rest of the bible.

[pawn]

The more I learned about the new testament, and how it came about, and what times in history each book was originally written, the more I came to realize that Paul was most likely THE lead inventor of Christianity as we know it.  Paul's letter's and evangelizing predate the gospels, and the oldest gospel (Mark) was written by one of Paul's companions.  As was the gospel of Luke, written by a friend of Paul.  Though some version of a christ-cult existed before Paul, Paul was the lead man in inventing the christian religion and on converting many jews and non-jews alike.  Much the same way that Mohammed invented Islam.

[NeverAgainV]

I never noticed how different paul and jesus teaching were when I was a christian, but now oh boy! but then I find jesus teachings being equally distasteful.

Yes Jesus "said" some very harsh statements such as, 

Luke 14:26

King James Version (KJV)

²⁶ If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE.

 

That is the verse the controlling ifb & other bible sects use to separate people from their flesh families!! It's cruel...Jesus, the cult leader, follow me or ELSE!!!  Yeah....love, right?

[RipVanWinkle]

Hi NeverAgainV. Where you been? bill

[chrisstavrous]

 

 

I never noticed how different paul and jesus teaching were when I was a christian, but now oh boy! but then I find jesus teachings being equally distasteful.

Yes Jesus "said" some very harsh statements such as,

Luke 14:26

King James Version (KJV)

 

²⁶ If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, HE CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE.

 

That is the verse the controlling ifb & other bible sects use to separate people from their flesh families!! It's cruel...Jesus, the cult leader, follow me or ELSE!!! Yeah....love, right?

2.4 billion people believe it is.......one word terrifying

[Geezer]

The more I learned about the new testament, and how it came about, and what times in history each book was originally written, the more I came to realize that Paul was most likely THE lead inventor of Christianity as we know it.  Paul's letter's and evangelizing predate the gospels, and the oldest gospel (Mark) was written by one of Paul's companions.  As was the gospel of Luke, written by a friend of Paul.  Though some version of a christ-cult existed before Paul, Paul was the lead man in inventing the christian religion and on converting many jews and non-jews alike.  Much the same way that Mohammed invented Islam.

 

According to the scholars I’ve read no one knows who wrote the gospels. Even the origin of the Jesus story is unknown. The stories existed in oral form for unknown decades before anyone began writing them down. The gospels do contain a number of similarities with a lot of well documented pagan demigod stories though. These demigod stories existed for up to a thousand years before the Jesus story surfaced.

 

Whoever wrote the gospel oral stories down clearly wasn’t an eyewitness to anything and apparently didn’t know anyone who was either. Based on a critical analysis of the gospels it appears whoever wrote the stories down was not familiar with Palestine and therefore got a lot of the information about that area wrong.

 

As far as historians can determine the gospels are fiction. The fact there is no historical Jesus is common knowledge even among Christians.

 

Dr. Bart Ehrman among others has written about this issue.  You might find this book interesting.

Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are by Bart D. Ehrman

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Forged-Writing-God--Why-Bibles-Authors/dp/0062012622/ref=la_B001I9RR7G_1_11/185-5340452-4716267?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1384350673&sr=1-11

[themonkeyman]

Has anyone ever noticed the difference in the teachings of Christ from the Gospels and Paul's letters? I always hear the modern church movement talk about the ireligiousity of Christ and how he hated the religion, how he hated rules and regulations and it was all about a genuine relationship with God. However, i was always noticing that Paul was all about "men you sit here, women you sit there, oh and you can't really speak if you are a women", and if you are a widow after a certain age then forget about remarying, but if you are young that its okay; oh and don't wear any jewelry or make up if you are a woman...there must be others but those are the ones that always stuck with me.

 

Anyone ever had any similar thoughts?

 

I've had a problem with most churches as they generally quote Pauline verses than stuff that Jesus actually said.  If you ever goto a Sunday Service how often are  the words of their 'GOD' quoted against Pauls opinions.

 

Paul was a fraud that Just got connected the the right people.  I never have trusted that Fictional Character and I never will.

[themonkeyman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact John the Baptist even considered Jesus as being a fraud later on while imprisoned says a lot about his character I think.

 

That sounds interesting.  Source of information?

 

Matthew Chapter 11

 

 

I don't get it.  Commentary?

 

Sorry, you just asked for my source. It's a short read really. Didn't you read it? Verse 2: When John,q who was in prison,r heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come,s or should we expect someone else?”

 

Yes, I read it.  I've never heard anyone point to that statement as evidence that John considered Jesus a fraud.  Moving on...

 

Paul!  Yes, his lawless teaching was quite different from the teachings of Jesus.  Christianity would not have taken off the way it did if circumcision had been required of converts.

 

Sorry if you do not agree with my particular word of fraud.  For me, and this is personal opinion, when folks questioned the authenticity of a holy man in those times, they were considering a possible fraud going on. They had a lot of those running around Jerusalem, and the fact he sent his disciples to basically push him on what Jesus' role really was going to be? That's a pretty harsh confrontation. Are you going to take over the government or not? Have I been wasting my time lifting you up to save our people? Who are you?  That's what his doubt reflects.

 

 

I find this an interesting view but not one that I is without Merit.  Indeed Legend tells that  John was a Cousin of Jesus as Mary had stayed with his Mother during her birth of Jesus.

 

What I find so strange is the fact that John in Prison was still skeptical.  You would think family ties would have made John testify.  Also the really really odd thing here is that even though they were cousins it appears that they are blindly unaware of this fact.

 

I may not see family for years but I still know my cousin when I see them.  Especially if my cousin was supposed to be God incarnate it seams John is so oblivious to this fact.

 

Jesus himself describes himself back to John with no discernible Miracle.  E.g. Taking over the Govt or even coming to John in a vision

[miekko]

Paul is an interesting author in many ways, and there's good reason why so much ink has been spilled by scholars regarding what he might have meant, what his background *really* was, what opinions and practices he really objected to, etc. 

 

However, there's another interesting problem regarding him - a lot of people are willing to assign any blame to him, whenever they find a fault in Christianity. And this is convenient. The idea that Jesus was a great and kind sage is so strong in the minds of many - even the most liberal believers - that even things Jesus-in-the-gospel said, they'll be ready to blame Paul for. He's convenient - if Jesus is perfect and Christianity is imperfect, who better to blame than this apostle-wannabe? 

 

But of course we should all realize by now that Jesus wasn't perfect either, and although he may have had some innovative and nice teachings, a lot of his teachings are pretty much reruns of ideas that had been around in Judaism (and other religions too) for centuries. At times the Jesus in the Gospels comes across as quite a prick, an egoist who won't countenance anyone who is not immediately aware that Jesus indeed is the Messiah. At times it's rather absurd even!

 

Paul did contribute some sort of ok things, but on the other hand, it seems his contribution is very difficult to understand. A contribution a friend of mine once pointed out was the entire grace thing - before Paul, Christianity and Judaism were about obedience and law, and once you had failed to live up to the law, you were basically lost, and Paul changed this in a way Jesus never did - if we only had the gospels, Christianity'd still be living in Jewish-style religious observances. Weird thing is, this isn't what (Pharisaic) Judaism ever taught - although it may have been what some very tiny movements in Enochian (~ Essene) Judaism taught - but Paul's supposedly a Pharisee, not an Essene? So, Paul contributed a sort of good solution to a non-problem.

 

As for the gentiles, pharisaic/rabbinic Judaism already considered it possible for gentiles to participate in judaism without joining fully. Either Paul somehow created a problem for gentiles AND solved it, or he belonged to some other movement in Judaism that did previously require conversion, and reformed that movement. If that is the case, Christianity probably already had grown out of that movement, and it's a reform of an unknown version of Judaism.

 

(A lot of what we assume about Judaism, early Christianity and Paul tends to be based on mistaken assumptions about Judaism. This is a problem. But a further problem is we tend to read Paul as though those mistaken assumptions inform his writing as well, which seems even more unlikely - unless he belonged to some really far-out tiny Jewish movement, and the early Christians were even further out in the same direction.) 

[bdp]

 

Jesus Vs Paul - that would have been an awesome Celebrity Death Match!

 

[NeverAgainV]

Hi NeverAgainV. Where you been? bill

Hi Bill! I've been real busy...I'll PM when I get some time.

[florduh]

But it's all the inspired Word of God, isn't it? 

[Blood]

I actually take the old "Dutch Radical" position and believe ALL of Paul's letters are from the second century, and none are written by "the historical Paul," assuming such a figure existed. He is not as implausible a historical figure as Jesus, but he is utterly implausible as a Jewish Pharisee. 

 

It's strange to me how people can acknowledge that most of the epistles in the NT are second century "pseudepigrapha"/forgeries, but there's something utterly authentic about seven of Paul's epistles, therefore they must date from the 50s.

 

Also, contra Doherty, it does not follow that because the supposedly authentic epistles largely do not refer to the life and teachings of Jesus, that they must be early and pre-date Mark. And that therefore the early Christians only believed in a celestial Jesus. (Although I do believe they believed in a celestial Jesus, it was not for this reason.)

 

That does not work, because (as Doherty himself admits!) all of the epistles are equally silent about the "life" of Jesus. 

 

So, if the epistle writers were working after Mark and Matthew, why did they not refer to those gospels? My guess is that the epistle writers simply never thought of it -- the epistles played a completely separate role in their theology than the gospels. The epistles were all about apostolic authority, not the life of Jesus. The epistolary form was adopted as a way of solving the problems that the fledgling second century churches were facing. Rather than have "the rules according to Justin," let's instead write an epistle credited to Peter or Paul where it's imagined that they said what we want to say back in the 40s and 50s. 

[RipVanWinkle]

by the way, it seems like the church is build on Paul teachings, but didn't Jesus called Peter a Rock, on whom he will build his church? I don't see Peter being much of a significat player after the ressurection. Am i wrong to assume this? sergei29

 

I think you are right. The Catholics seized on Peter as the first pope and the rock to make their church appear to be the legitimate church of christ. (That claim of Peter as the first pope is tenuous at best.) But most of the doctrines of the Catholic church that came from the NT were from Paul, not Peter, as were the Protestant churches. The difference in the mere volume of Paul's epistles is substantial.  In other words Jesus' prophesy didn't come to pass, but neither the catholics nor the protestants would ever admit that.  bill

[♦ ficino ♦]

I actually take the old "Dutch Radical" position and believe ALL of Paul's letters are from the second century, and none are written by "the historical Paul," assuming such a figure existed. He is not as implausible a historical figure as Jesus, but he is utterly implausible as a Jewish Pharisee. 

 

It's strange to me how people can acknowledge that most of the epistles in the NT are second century "pseudepigrapha"/forgeries, but there's something utterly authentic about seven of Paul's epistles, therefore they must date from the 50s.

 

Also, contra Doherty, it does not follow that because the supposedly authentic epistles largely do not refer to the life and teachings of Jesus, that they must be early and pre-date Mark. And that therefore the early Christians only believed in a celestial Jesus. (Although I do believe they believed in a celestial Jesus, it was not for this reason.)

 

That does not work, because (as Doherty himself admits!) all of the epistles are equally silent about the "life" of Jesus. 

 

So, if the epistle writers were working after Mark and Matthew, why did they not refer to those gospels? My guess is that the epistle writers simply never thought of it -- the epistles played a completely separate role in their theology than the gospels. The epistles were all about apostolic authority, not the life of Jesus. The epistolary form was adopted as a way of solving the problems that the fledgling second century churches were facing. Rather than have "the rules according to Justin," let's instead write an epistle credited to Peter or Paul where it's imagined that they said what we want to say back in the 40s and 50s.

Hey Blood, are you the chap from earlywritings? Welcome on here, bro!

[Blood]

Yep. Thanks for the welcome.