Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

quote:

---

The Jews had to first attempt--and fail--to keep all of the laws perfectly.

---

According to whom?What does God expect Christians to do perfectly?Even though Christians are supposedly not under the law, they have the same problem today as the Jewish teachers did then. So are Christians allowed to have the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do presentation, but the Jews weren't?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Hey ramoss,In my journey to understand Judaism better, I came across a book and a web site that advocate that Paul did not go against Torah and was following in the footsteps of Gamaliel and lightening the load the Torah sometimes caused.1. The Letter Writer, Paul's Background and Torah Perspective, by Tim Hegg 20022. YashaNet a site concerning Messianic JudaismOddly enough as they try to keep Paul Jewish, it means that Christians were not exempt from following Torah.Let me know what you think of the web site. From my limited knowledge of Judaism, they do seem to keep Paul in sync with Judaism in some cases.Unfortunately even they have trouble at times keeping Paul on track with what I understand of Judaism. For example, they haven't really reconciled the "atonement for another" issue with Judaism. I don't feel that Jesus ever truly presented himself as a sacrifice for everyone's sins. (The corresponding thread didn't produce anything to the contrary either)I don't feel they really made their case that Paul and Jesus were truly on the same track.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

I find the vast majority of people in the "Messanic Jewish" movement that I have personally come across were not brought up in the Jewish faith, but were rather brought up Christian.

---

Interesting. Christians going back to the Jewish roots, but not wanting to let go of the promised Christian salvation. Don't want to burn their bridges.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

My justification is that I'm reading the text at face value, within context and without theological bias.

---

You know I'm all for face value, but we also have to take in to account the creativeness in writing and trying to convey feelings in a written work.The phrase "original sin" didn't enter into church teachings until Augustine. Augustine identified original sin as a basic yearning for self-gratification that turns people away from God. His views became part of the official church teachings in 418CE. Apparently the notion that original sin was the break in the relationship with God due to Adam's sin came about during the middle ages.We have to define what is truly Paul (if possible) and weed out later notions. I haven't spent as much time weeding from this garden as I have other areas of the Bible.Makes you wonder if anyone who actually read his letters at the time they were written actually understood what he was talking about either, considering how many different ways he has been interpreted.He wouldn't be the first preacher to not make sense. (or maybe he was )

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Unfortunately, we have only part of an ongoing conversation.

---

It is a shame we don't have the "rest of the story."

quote:

---

One thing that was always stressed during our studies was that they were really just that, Letters.

---

Unfortunately many churches don't stress Paul's letters as being different than the words of God or Jesus.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Paul seems to be in line with what Jesus taught and the scriptures to me.

---

Since John and Mark were written after Paul's ministry and the verse from Mark is considered a late addition, IMO the authors and editors were influenced by Paul's ministry; especially since the Jerusalem Church, with James as the leader, continued to uphold Jewish ways.As ramoss pointed out, your OT verses read in context do not deal with original sin or atonement sacrifice.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

but Mark did not get his information from Paul, he got his information from eye-witness sources (most likely Peter).

---

Where does the author state his sources?

quote:

---

Why would someone go to Paul for a qoute on Jesus?

---

I doubt if Paul was alive when the Book of Mark was written.

quote:

---

They might have been influenced by Paul's ministry, but that doesn't make any difference when you are writing a biographical account of somebody.

---

Sure it does. It depends on the purpose and the beliefs of the author.

quote:

---

Also, John (the apostle and earlier disciple,'who Jesus loved') was an eye-witness account in himself.

---

The book of John was written around 80-100AD and the name of the author is not mentioned in the book. Even in the book "Case for Christ" by Strobel, it is stated that the authors of the gospels are unknown. Since the author is unknown, we have no proof that the author was an eyewitness.

quote:

---

Another thing, with James as the apparant leader of the church, and holding up Jewish ways, how does that affect the authors of the gospels?

---

You said that Paul's teachings were not different than those of Jesus. Since the disciples (the men who were physically with Jesus) were still practicing Judaism and Paul's teachings seem to deviate from Judaism, then IMO Paul is not upholding the teachings of Jesus. IMO there was some contention between the Jerusalem Church and Paul.

quote:

---

Also, the context by which ramoss pointed out is a context read from a Jewish standpoint

---

How else does one read Jewish Scripture? (That's a rhetorical question)CONTEXT: 1. The explanatory words and ideas surrounding a particular word or statement in a discourse.
2. The circumstances in which an event occurs.Isaiah's words were given for a specific audience and time. There is no indication that God intended otherwise.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 05-26-2005 04:08 PM

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

The author of Mark does not identify himself nor does he state who his sources are.

quote:

---

The best evidence comes from Papias (130 A.D.) who actually qoutes an earlier source saying Mark was a close associate of the apostle Peter, and that most of his accounts came from Peter.

---

So we have Papias an obscure bishop of Hierapolis whose five volume treatise called An Exposition of the Lord's Reports no longer exists. IOW we can't verify what the original author wrote.What is left of his work are fragments within the writings of Irenaeus. They are no longer available within the author's context.So Papias is repeating what John the Presbyter said. Unfortunately the fragment doesn't state that Papias was talking about the Book of Mark that we have today and have no idea who John the Presbyter was. A man named Mark may very well have written a journal or report for Peter. The fragment doesn't identify what Mark wrote to be an organized piece of work. Plus the book of Mark has some cultural problems for someone who was supposedly a resident of the area.

quote:

---

Some say it is clear it was written before 70 A.D. since there was no indication of the Temple in Jerusalem already being destroyed in the prediction noted in Mark 13:2.

---

And some say it isn't.

quote:

---

It is concluded that Paul died under the reign of Nero and the persecution which preceded then. Nero was Emperor from 54-68 A.D., thus Paul had to have died within that timeframe, therefore Paul was alive during the time which the gospel of Mark was written.

---

According to Irenaeus, Mark didn't pass on his writings until after Paul and Peter died in Rome. From what I have read Christian tradition holds that Peter and Paul were in Rome together and both perished there during the Neronian persecution of Christians around 64 to 67 CE. Now it would be nice to believe that Mark sat right down and organized his writings, but IMO the odds are against it with all the turmoil after Nero's rampage and then there's the unrest leading to the destruction of the temple. Besides Irenaeus didn't say it was an organized book.So still, IMO, Paul was probably not alive when the Book of Mark, as we know it, was written.Mark the interpreter handed down what he wrote about the teachings of Peter. Peter was with Paul. More probability of Pauline influence if it was the same Mark.I'll have to address the rest later.This message has been edited by purpledawn, 05-27-2005 06:22 AM

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Of still greater importance is the testimony of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, linked immediately with the Apostolic Age as he is, through his teacher Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John.

---

Again you have Irenaeus endorsing 2nd hand information.According to Irenaeus, Papias was "a hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp."But Papias states otherwise: Irenaeus is losing his reliability.If you have other testimony, please quote them or link to them.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Isaiah's word were prophetic, therefore the specific date and time cannot be told until the event has already happened. Jewish beliefs say that the Messiah hasn't come yet, therefore they read it as an affliction to Israel. Christian belief sees it as the Messiah has come, that Jesus is him, and since Jesus fulfills the prophesies in Isaiah 53, every one of them, it quite safe for Christians to interpret it as a prophesy of Jesus.

---

I think there is a thread open which is a better outlet for this discussion. Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?Unless you can show that God intended for the words of the prophets to have double meaning, then Jesus did not fulfill Isaiah 53 which is written in past tense as ramoss pointed out. Show that God supports double fulfillment of the prophets' words.If you can show that, jump on the other thread and go for it.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Can I just say I am really enjoying reading this thread? A wonderful read and learning experience.I agree that Paul has been used and abused, but I also feel he had his own agenda. The book "The Letter Writer, Paul's Background and Torah Perspective" by Tim Hegg helped give me a better view of Paul's work.There are still some difficult places and Truthlover seems to give me more to think about as does this thread. Thanks all.Carry on

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I just don't think he's responsible for the Protestant version of "no works."

---

I agree. When read as a whole I don't feel he was either.

quote:

---

His focus on being out from under the Law looks stronger than the other apostles to me.

---

From what I have read concerning Jewish history it seems that lessening the weight of the law was a concern for many Jews especially the less fortunate.I view Paul as an evangelist who seems to have a conflict with the original disciples. I don't really have a clear viewpoint at this stime. Just little bits that show up here and there. Of course the more dogma and tradition I get out of my head the more my view changes. That's why I'm enjoying reading this thread.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz