Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

To Admins: this one is probably for Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy.I wish to contest that Paul of Tarsus -and not Jesus of Nazareth- is the true founder of Christianity. Modern orthodox Christianity is based on Paul's doctrines and their subsequent interpretation and expansion. Paul introduced the concepts of:

1. The original sin.
   "as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all man, because all sinned... "(Rom 5:12)
   ​
   and punishment of all for the original sin
   "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam... " ( Rom 5:14)
   ​
2. the atonement sacrifice
   ​
   "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice...at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:25-26)
   ​
   "You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for our sins. " (Rom 5:6-8)
   ​
3. salvation by faith, instead of salvation by works
   (Gal 2:16, Gal 3:11, Rom 3:28). In contrast Jesus taught that whoever practices the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.(Mat 5:17-20).

Paul was a man who -by his own admission- had never met Jesus but was converted by a vision. He taught doctrines that Jesus never did and some that Jesus directly contradicted.My questions to Christians (or should I say Paulians !?) are:A) on what authority was Paul allowed to extend / replace Jesus teachings and the Jewish traditions / interpretations ?B) Why is Paul's divine revelation accepted as such, while accounts of divine revelation by others are rejected off-hand ?. Joseph Smith is a good example, his account is more recent and better authenticated than Paul's. How can you reject mr Smith's teachings but happily accept Paul's ?C) What is the most plausible explanation for an orthodox Jew, who claimed he had fought against the new Jesus sect fearing that it represented a danger to Jewish orthodoxy, to renounce it practically overnight and become its cornerstone ?! And once he does, why does he avoid revealing his insight to his fellow Jews, who still shared the 'errors' he now became aware of and who -one would think- would seem the first to be entitled to his new revelation?This message has been edited by Legend, 04-20-2005 05:50 PM

quote:

---

also, i wish to contribute the fact that according to the gospel of matthew, peter, not paul was supposed to be head the jesus's church.

---

good point, yet Paul berates Peter over his reluctance to share a meal with gentile Christians (Gal. 2:11-13). On what authority can he belittle the actions of one Jesus' closest disciples ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Hi truthlover, The idea that we all sin is not new. The idea that Adam was the first sinner is not new either. What is new in Paul is the notion that Adam's sin is cascaded through the generations to each and all of us and that we're all paying (death) for it, regardless of our own transgressions. If you don't think so, show me where it says so, outside Paul. Where, outside Paul, is the idea that all need redemption as a result of Adam's sin, is introduced?. Yes, he does :
"..as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all man, because all sinned... "(Rom 5:12)
According to Paul, we've all been dying-and going to die- because of Adam's sin!In contrast, the OT God says: "... the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ez.18:20-22). . I conclude he was the first because I don't know of anyone else who suggested it in that way before him. My take on John is that it draws on Paul's teachings: Paul also first equated Jesus with the Paschal Lamb(1 Cor. 5:7). The atonement sacrifice concept in the O.T is very different, it's a sacrifice offered by the Jews to atone for specific sins. Paul changes this to a sacrifice made by God (?? this doesn't even make sense) for all mankind to be cleansed of the original sin. there's no reason to suppose that this is about an atonement sacrifice. Jesus predicts (fears?) that by going to Jerusalem he will die. In verses 24-25 he's calling on his disciples to follow and die with him. Would he need his disciples to die with him, if the only reason he was going to die was to redeem us ? Maybe St. Anselm is the one who got the doctrine established in the church, but he didn't make it out of thin air, did he? where did he pick it up from ? Obviously, Paul.I think Paul needed the concept of original sin, so he could put forward the concept of a saviour who sacrificed himself for us. If we're not doomed from the start, there's very little to be saved from. Also, both concepts are not new to the people Paul preached to (Greeks and Romans). The parallels with the myths of Pandora's box (original sin) and Prometheus (saviour's atonement sacrifice) would make Christianity much easier to accept by the Hellenistic world.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

My justification is that I'm reading the text at face value, within context and without theological bias. Paul is not saying that death came to us all because we all sinned; he is saying that death came to us all because Adam sinned. This is the punishment we receive for Adam's sin.This is reinforced in 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. "Sin was in the world (the evidence is death) before the Law was ever given. The law was too late to prevent sin, and too weak to save from sin. Even though no one had expressly violated God's verbal command just like Adam did, they still died (showing that they had sinned).Is your point that we're not all directly punished for Adam's sin but ,rather, are living with the consequences of Adam's sin ? Funnily enough, that's one of the doctrinal differences between the Catholic and Orthodox churches. However, like I said, Paul in Romans, makes clear that we've all sinned because Adam sinned. He also makes clear that the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). We die if we sin and we all sinned ,because of Adam. So, we're punished for Adam's sin. Sorry, I can't see how the "dead in your sins" verse is Eph 2:1 contradicts Rom 5:12-14.
Also, how do you know that that it took centuries for anyone to figure out what Paul meant ? The substance of Rom 2:5-10 is that the final judgment will be on character alone. The sinner is amassing, like hoarded treasure, an ever accumulating stock of divine wrath, to burst upon him in "the day of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God!". That doesn't negate the notion that we all have sinned, through Adam, and only by faith in jesus we can be saved (Rom 10:9,10,13)Similarly, where in Rom 6:14-23 is stated that only the sins we directly commit in our lifetime matter when it comes to god's judgement ? How do you know? Ok, I'll retract this. The OT is a bit contradictory on this (Ez.18:20-22 and Deut 24:16, against Ex 20:5, Ex 34:6). I'll look more into this. However, my point is that St Anselm couldn't have made the doctrine up off the top of his head, he must have based in on the Bible. The most obvious place where he could have based this, IMO, are Paul's letters. If you don't think that's the case, you could show me other Biblical passages on the atonement sacrifice that most closely match the doctrine as it's taught today by the RC church. Ofcourse it does! My whole premise is based on the idea that Paul taught doctrine alien -and even contradictory- to Jesus. The atonement sacrifice (Paul's distortion) is exactly such a doctrine. Why do I have to find a reference to support the view that a Jewish preacher, who respected Jewish tradition and obeyed Jewish law, saw things from a Jewish point of view ?!?You'll be asking me for reference on why I think George W. Bush sees things from a right-wing, conservative point of view, next! Seriously now, we know what the Jewish view of atonement sacrifice and the sacrifical lamb is, from within the OT and outside it. Paul's presentation of Jesus as such a sacrifice is opposed to the Jewish view. We have no indication that Jesus agreed with Paul so we have to accept the default position that Jesus's idea of the atonement sacrifice was the Jewish one. Therefore, Paul is the originator of the currently accepted doctrine. I can't answer that without being speculative about the motives of the gospel authors. However, if you're going to use this as support of the idea that Jesus was an atonement sacrifice -In the jewish sense- you have to answer the questions "Who made the sacrifice and to whom?" and "What was given up by the party making the sacrifice ?". I'm afraid I have to. Not only is it strange, it also doesn't make sense in that we can't be sinners because we can't keep the Mosaic law, as this law isn't intended for us (non-jews). The law was given to Jews for Jews to keep. Paul couldn't have been addressing the Greeks and saying that they're sinners because they can't keep the perfect law, as they never had any requirement to keep the law. Paul needed everyone to start off as a sinner, so he could push the 'Jesus as a saviour / atonement sacrifice / lamb of God ' idea. So, he says that we're all covered by the original sin, Jew and non-Jew alike.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Pandora's box myth has striking parallels with Paul's original sin. In both stories, the man is entrusted with a God-given, unique gift (garden of Eden / pandora's box), which carries a 'look but don't touch' rule. In both stories, the woman is directly (Pandora) or indirectly (Eve) responsible for breaking this rule. In both stories, man and his descendants pay the price for this transgression, by having to live with evil & death.Prometeheus again has great similarities. Prometheus / Jesus both voluntarily agree to accept punishment (Promethues does it against God's wishes, unlike Jesus), in order to give mankind a unique gift (fire / atonement for sins). Both suffer as a result of their love for mankind and in both cases, the sacrifice is kind of moot, as neither can really die (Prometheus is kind of a demi-god).I'm not aware of any similar jewish myths / traditions (I'm sure Arach will correct me if that's wrong).It just makes me wonder if Paul intentionally built on these myths to make them acceptable to the Hellenistic world, or was just subconsciously influenced himself by his upbringing in Hellenistic Tarsus. His teachings would have been a lot more palatable to Greeks and Romans than to Jews.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

maybe the phrase "original sin" didn't become commonplace until later, but then again neither have other mainstream Christian terms and names, the Trinity being a prominent case in point.

quote:

---

We have to define what is truly Paul (if possible) and weed out later notions.

---

I see your point, but I can't see any way this can be done objectively and reliably.

quote:

---

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

---

yes, my gut feeling is that Greeks would have interpreted it the way I suggested, it would have fallen in line much more nicely with their myths and culture, especially if they had no previous knowledge of Jesus' life and teachings, other than what they heard from Paul.The other thing that gets me about Paul is that he never mentions anything about the historical Jesus: his place of birth, his baptism, his miracles, the passion, etc. it's almost as if Jesus -to Paul- is a mythical figure himself.

quote:

---

He wouldn't be the first preacher to not make sense. (or maybe he was)

---

they all make sense if you want them to! Just makes me wonder why Jesus himself didn't leave any unambigious, permanent record. We wouldn't be having these debates now, would we ?!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

The whole context of Romans, Chapter 2 about god's judging of the self-righteous, the people who pass judgement and God's impartiality (Jews are not exempt from God's wrath). In Rom 2:6,7 Paul states that God's judgment will be impartial and based on men's works. Those who have persevered in doing good may expect eternal life. Those who have not only heard, but kept, God's law, will receive God's justification.However, I think you're making the mistake of reading this as a prediction. This is not a prediction, just a statement of principles. Paul is stating the priciples on which judgment will be based on, in God's final assessment. This doesn't mean that there will be men who meet these standards.It's a bit like a judge before a trial stating what level of evidence is needed to find a defendant guilty. It doesn't mean that the defendant will be found guilty, it just outlines what is needed for guilt to be established.The reason that Rom 2,6:7 can only be read as a declaration of standards is because Paul makes very clear, in the next chapter, that these standards cannot be met by any man, noone can be justified by deeds of law, noone is righteous enough to do (only) good (Rom 3:20, Rom 3:9-19 emphatically).Paul says in Rom 2,6:7 that each person will get what they deserve. But Paul's doctrine was that no one would gain eternal salvation on the basis of principles like these, noone deserves it because noone is righteous. Consequently, the only road to salvation is through "the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:21-26).Overall, Paul's teachings are :
- we're all born sinners, because of Adam.
- The wages of sin is death.
- We cannot save ourselves by our works, only by faith in Jesus.Jesus never preached salvation by faith in himself. He never claimed that he came to take the original sin away and spare us the punishment. In contrast to Paul, he taught that whoever practices the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.(Mat 5:17-20). Jesus' basic teachings -in a nutshell- were: don't lie, don't kill, don't steal, love your neighbour as yourself and you'll be fine.Hence my point about Paul teaching ideas alien and even contrary to Jesus.will write a separate post about your point on original sin.** EDIT to add subtitleThis message has been edited by Legend, 04-27-2005 08:43 AM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I take your point about John. I fear that if we bring John into the discussion it might drift into a John vs. the synoptics debate and I'd rather concentrate on Paul in this thread. Still, feel free to quote John to backup your point of view and I'll try to keep my answers focused. the difference, IMHO, is in the how rather than the what/where. In Romans, particularly 2 & 3 (as per my previous post), Paul states that people are born sinners, they're not righteous and can't do all good . The only way to find the righteousness necessary for salvation is through faith in Jesus. So, when Jesus says that the road to life is narrow and few find it, he doesn't tell you how to. Paul does. well, the 'giving up houses and family' point, yes, it is. Paul says that no deeds, by themselves, will gain you everlasting life (Rom: 3:20, 3:9-19 ). This can only come through faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:21-26).As for the Jesus as a ransom quotes, I can see how you would read this as a suggestion of atonement sacrifice. However, -again reading at face value- a 'ransom' ('lytron' in Greek) was a redemption price for a slave's freedom. Would the disciples -at this time- interpret this as a sign of an impending atonement sacrifice, or as a clear call to humble servanthood as prescribed of those of the kingdom of God ? (I'm not being facetious, I really don't know).got to go for now but will be back soon,

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I can't see anywhere in the Gospels that would suggest this. Even in the Genesis account the punishment is handed out specifically to Adam and Eve. The original sin is only "the condition of sin that marks all humans as a result of Adam's first act of disobedience". (Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions). This is an idea that Paul invented. He also says that we are all punished (die) as a result of this.
Now, I'm not arguing about the nature of the punishment, to me that's irrelevant. The RC church have come up with the hell / purgatory idea. Other Christians say that it's eternal separation from God. Whatever. My point is that Paul came up with the "we're all born sinners and we'll all get punished unless we accept Jesus as our saviour" concept.Ofcourse Paul's doctrine raises the interesting question "if Jesus was born of Mary, didn't he carry the original sin too?"
The answer can't obviously be yes, so what do we conclude ?
a) original sin is carried down the generations only through the male essence.
b) Mary was free from original sin. This, ofcourse, simply pushes back immaculate conception by one generation.
c) there is some magical moment between conception and birth where a magic wand is waved and ,hey presto, the foetus is now carrying the original sin.It just goes to show how muddled up the whole thing called Christianity really is. It also goes to show how early fathers, and not Jesus, shaped up the notions that are currently accepted as standard Christian theology. Jesus, IMO, was just a posthumous figurehead, a 'pretty face' to be used for PR, while others,like Paul, were pulling the strings. A bit like George W Bush , I suppose. Apart from the 'pretty face' bit.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Hi truthlover,thanks for the reply. Yes, this thread has the possibility to easily digress into other subjects, e.g the Acts & Galatians differences, like you said, or John vs synoptics, so I'll try to keep it relevant to the OP.BTW, I'm not trying to 'prove' that Paul had radically different ideas to Jesus, I don't think that can be conclusively done. I'm just putting forward my point of view, trying to look at it from as an objective angle as possible. Part of my doing so is the assumption that Jesus would have the Jewish concept of 'sacrifice to God' and -consequently- couldn't have seen himself in the way Paul presented him.Now, I can't present my view as a fact, but the scriptures tell the story of a man who attended the Jewish religious festivals (Passover - John 12.12; Mark 14.12-26, Tabernacles John 7.1-39) and attended the synagogue every sabbath (Luke 4.16). He said he didn't come to replace the Law, instead advocated people to keep the Law. He even argued that the crowds and his disciples should do as the scribes and Pharisees said (Matthew 23.3), "but not as they do"!.So, IMHO, it's a fair assumption to say that the twisted (by Jewish standards) idea of him as an atonement sacrifice could not have been what he thought and taught.Anyway, give it some thought and try to change my mind have a good festival!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I wasn't aware of Doherty's web site, thanks for pointing it out, I'm having a look right now.I'm -initially- reluctant to reject Jesus' historicity, as many religious myths are based on historical persons / events. My personal opinion is that the historical Jesus can only be hinted at in the synoptics and is nothing like Paul or even John make him out to be.Will post back on Doherty as soon as I've digested what he says.** EDIT for spelling / typosThis message has been edited by Legend, 05-25-2005 07:20 PM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Faith,this is referring to the first part of your post and your quotes.these are valid points. You're quoting from three different sources: the synoptics, Acts and John. I want to address these separately, each in their own context. My argument is based on two premises:
A) that out of the three contexts you quote from, the synoptics should be used as the most credible evidence of what Jesus taught.
B) that there is a significant difference between calls to believe on or in Jesus and calls to believe in the gospel or on what Jesus said.I'll try to explain why and how:Before going further I think we should establish what Paul means by faith in or on Jesus (B). Throughout most of his epistles Paul repeatedly emphasises the point that belief in Jesus is needed for salvation. Conveniently, Paul doesn't tell us what Jesus said or did, so, IMO, this is not what Paul is talking about when he mentions faith in Jesus. He does, however, tells us who Jesus is: He's the Son of God (Rom 1:3-4), send by his Father to redeem us (Gal 4:4-5), dying for us, thus taking upon Himself our punishment for the original sin (Rom 5:6-14). And that is exactly what Paul expects us to believe in order to gain salvation.What Jesus himself said and did, is a different matter, which I'll -hopefully- explain below.Now on with (A),1) First, the easy one:Acts is basically a travelogue of Paul's preaching and founding churches around the world. It is allegedly written by his travelling companion, Luke. This raises the distinct possibility that Luke (or whoever Paul's travelling companion was) had been, up to a certain extent, influenced by Paul's teachings. Indeed, it is likely that the author was one of Paul's students. As a consequence, I think that accounts and events presented in Acts, are either directly quoting Paul, or interpreted by one one of his students, who, I think it's fair to say, would see things from the same theological point of view.For this reason alone, I don't think you should use Acts in order to support the view that Paul didn't contradict Jesus. The author of Acts is either quoting Paul, or has a vested interest in Paul's theology. Acts is all about Paul and says nothing about what Jesus preached.Even so and interestingly enough, even in your Acts quotes above, whereas Paul is quoted as requesting belief on Jesus (16:31, 19:4 ), the other main figure of Acts, Peter, is quoted as requesting acceptance of the word of Jesus. This ties in nicely with the synoptics, as I'll show next. Paul, on the other hand, repeats the mantra that we see in Gal 2:16 and Rom. 3:21-26 about faith in Jesus.2) The Synoptics.The Synoptics were written between 40-70 AD (depending on who you listen to). They seem to all have been based on an original source (what is referred to as 'Q' gospel), which would plausibly place their original content within -or shortly after- Jesus's lifetime.Characteristically, both your quotes from the synoptics have Jesus purport the belief in the gospel (Mar 1:14-15), or the word (Luk 8:12 ) and NOT the acceptance of himself as the Messiah / redeemer / et al.So the question is, what was the gospel, what was jesus's word ?Throughout the synoptics Jesus is portrayed to preach a number of human responsibilities (works) to be integral to salvation.
When asked by a lawyer what the most important commandment in the law was, Jesus answered (Matt 22:36-40, Luke 10:25-37) that the greatest law was to love god (see Deut 6:5) and the second was to love your neighbor as yourself (see Lev 18:19). In Luke, when the lawyer specifically asks what is necessary for eternal life (v.25) Jesus says "This DO and you will live" (v.28) -- showing clearly that salvation is related to works/actions.Jesus uses the Good Samaritan parable as an example of someone who gains eternal life, by rights of his works and without having any faith in Jesus.In Matt. 25:31-45, Jesus describes the final judgment as being based solely and entirely on human reaction to pain and suffering. Jesus makes it very clear that those who DO express compassion and love in their actions to the needy WILL be saved, while those who do not will NOT be saved.In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus summarizes his teachings, which are ALL based on actions,deeds and behavioural characteristics. He even makes it clear that he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. He advocates keeping the commandments because "whoever keeps and teaches them [commandments], he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."The only belief Jesus taught (in the synoptics) as necessary, was belief in the scriptures, which he himself quoted on numerous occasions.This is not what Paul expects us to have, to be saved.3) John,As John merits a separate post and it's getting late, I'll get back to you on that tomorrow.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Fair enough. The point I want to get at is that the synoptics predate John, by far, and themselves are predated by James (again, by far).P.S I personally think Luke at 130AD is pushing it a bit.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I'm not really bringing in external judgments other than the general consensus on the chronological order that the relevant parts of the Bible (Paul, James, Synoptics and John) were written. I was going to use that to put forward the argument that (i) there are theological differences between John / Paul, on one hand and the Synoptics / James on the other and that (ii) based on the historical / chronological context where those were respectively written, the Synoptics / James view would represent the view closer to what Jesus taught. That's all. I understand that, but you too have to understand that a thread with an opening post about how Paul taught ideas alien to Jesus, would, inevitably, lead to statements of what's credible evidence and what isn't . John's theology is much more developed than that of the synoptics and more in line with that of Paul, IMO. Jesus's teachings, in the synoptics, express a theology much simpler than the semi-mystical, convoluted theology of Paul and -to a certain extent- John. James again, blatantly contradicts Paul on the matter of salvation. So, I don't call Paul's teachings equivalent to the synoptics' and John's. I was just saying that you shouldn't be using Paul's first, second or third-hand accounts (Acts) in order to justify Paul's teachings Obedience in what? I'm just pointing out the context. The churches Paul is addressing through his epistles didn't have the words of Mark, Matthew, et al, to go by. Acts tells us that Paul founded most of these churches. They would have known what Paul told them about Jesus. And Paul, in his letters anyway, tells them practically nothing of the teachings of Jesus. He just requests belief that Jesus was who Paul said he was, not in what Jesus said or did. Well, if the views of two different sources contradict each other, shouldn't we use the facts about who wrote what when to determine which is closer to the truth ? that's fair enough, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to persuade you from your view either . I respect your decision.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

this is from Catholic.net - Catholics on the net.

quote:

---

The current dating of the four Gospels, accepted by the biblical establishment, which includes scholars of every persuasion, is: Mark 65-70; Matthew and Luke in the 80s; John in the 90s.

---

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html makes the following -supported- assertion:

quote:

---

There is no reason to date ANY of the Gospels later than 70 AD, although such dating may be permissible in the case of John;

---

As for James, Snyder makes a good case for dating it around 55AD, which would actually increase the plausibility of it having been written by James himself (http://jacksonsnyder.com/arc/2003/paulonjames.htm).

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."