Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?

1 Thess 2:13:"We thank God without ceasing, because, when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God."1 Cor 14:37 would be real similar, saying that a prophet or spiritual person ought to acknowledge the things "we" write as the commandments of Christ.There's a number of others, such as 2 Cor 2:17 and 4:2, but those could all be read the way preachers say they're proclaiming the word of God today. Not like the two above, which clearly claim more than modern preachers would claim.I didn't bring that up to prove any point. I didn't think you or some of the others would think it a positive thing that he claimed to be writing the commandments of Christ or that his teachings were the word of God, but it seemed right to point out that he saw his own teachings that way.One further note:I would have liked to have found something more clear on the creation/evolution statistics. I made funny comments about it, because the lack of answers was frustrating.

is paul referring to his own letters, or the gospel. i think the first sounds more plausibly, but i will present a logical argument none the less. this is sort of a maybe kind of thing, and very presumptious:this is the first letter to the thessalonians, correct?
-- and we have these letters because the churches kept them as important documents.
-- which means that no other letter was sent to this church, or we'd probably have at least an apocryphal version.
-- so paul probably sent no other letters before, just something else. yeah, looks like you have a point with that one. those seem to be about corrupting (misinterpretting?) the word of god. (which of course, paul does... but nevermind that point) well, honestly, i wasn't too sure he did, but that 1st corinthians verse is pretty conclusive, i would say. and it wouldn't have suprised me if he thought of himself that way, but i just wasn't aware if he'd said it.and i dunno if it would make my opinion of his work any worse. i still don't think his words are the word of god even if he says they are.but to what degree of specificity is paul speaking. is god staning over shoulder reading off the letter while paul types? is the whole letter the word of god, or is he just referring to the advice he gives being inspired?the preface to famous "avoid sex" bit in 1st cor 7 says:

quote:

---

1Cr 7:6 But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment.
1Cr 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself...

---

so that's not god talking, that's paul.

quote:

---

1Cr 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

---

so here again, paul is giving advice out of personal opinion. (and it's a good one, actually.)

quote:

---

1Cr 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

---

so he clearly DOES give advice that's not of god, but is of him, even according to himself. he must just be speaking of the "commandments" contained in his letter, but NOT the letters himself. i agree. it's all politics and spin.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-26-2005 03:37 PM

---

אָרַח

Both of you bring up great points but miss something we spent many an evening arguing over at St.Paul's.When we think of scripture in today's Christian environment, we immediately think of the Bible. But remember, during the times of Paul's travels and mission, nothing like the Bible existed.Both 1 & II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and maybe even Colossians predate even the Gospel of Mark. There was no organized body of Christian writings or Scripture, only the Old Testament and the preachings of this new breed of "invited Lecturers".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

well, as truth demonstrated above, paul seems to think that he spoke for god. and he obviously sent SOMETHING to the church un thessaly, or told them SOMETHING, considered to be scriptural.maybe a lost gospel? maybe paul even wrote it.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-26-2005 10:18 PM

---

אָרַח

Again, at the time of Paul's writings there were several Gospels floating around. Some were refered to but only as the term, GOSPEL, no attribution.You have to remember that the Gospels were broadsides, general documents outlining the personal history and teachings of a person, Jesus. We have no idea which such pieces Paul might have been referings to or whether he was refering to the older Jewish teachings.But at the time, all of the teachers, Paul as well as the others, DID believe they spoke with GOD's authority. They were each personally (except for the second wave) called to do so. But there was no organized body of Christian literature, only floating broadsides and letters.The most likely candidate is the manuscript Q. It would certainly have been in existence at that time, as were the Hebrew Gospel, Thomas, the Sophia and Signs.But please remember. At the time of Paul there is really no single thing called Christianity. Rather there are independant churches with somewhat similar beliefs. There is no organization, no heirarchy, no single Church.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

would paul be wave one or two? 1.5? well, that's sort of what we have now, actually. our modern new testament was basically a collection composed of the texts that were in common use in those churches. i'm not sure on that. i'll think about it. i've heard thought that q was just a quote book. i'm not sure how well thomas lines up with pauline philsophy, either. oh yeah. i know that. what's more is that paul probably only wrote to one subset of churches. peter and john probably wrote to others. and then were the gnostics. christianity didn't become united really until constantine.

---

אָרַח

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."

That is a question! Just for the record, I don't think God stood over anyone's shoulder and dictated.One addition, too, to your notes. In the very last verse of 1 Cor 7, he says it's better for widows to remain unmarried (by my judgment). If Paul wrote the letters to Timothy, he completely changed his mind on that judgment, based on experience. He ordered younger widows to remarry in 1 Timothy 5. (I love to point out those two passages to verbal inspirationists.)

Even concerning the "Old Testament," there are issues. The Book of Enoch had tremendous influence on the NT writings, on the church fathers, and is still included in the OT of the Ethiopian Orthodox church. It's quoted in Jude, and the story of the rich man and Lazarus takes its description of hades almost verbatim from Enoch.The martyrdom of Isaiah ("sawn in half" Heb 11), the Book of Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim 3), the Wisdom of Solomon (a different book than Ecclesiasticus), and others were "OT" books to at least much of the new Christian church.

In 1 Thes 2:13, he's almost surely referring to his visit there, not to something he sent them.

Actually, except for the gnostic/catholic split, Christianity was very united by the start of the 2nd century. I can't remember right now what happened in AD 130 that sealed the separation from Judaism, which wasn't complete even after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, but at that point, Christianity was very united. The gnostics and and Jewish versions of Christianity were outside, and the "catholics" were inside.My take on the Gospel of Thomas is that it's early enough that people argue today that it's "Christian," rather than gnostic. Gnosticism was originally a movement that was at least partly in the church (though if it was really started by Simon Magus, as the apologists claim, then it was outside the church, too). Late 1st and early 2nd century teachers would have a lot of freedom to teach separately from the appointed leaders of the church, and even to open up their own schools, the way the philosophers would. These schools were where gnosticism thrived when it was in the church.(Note: I get this from my own reading of the very early fathers'--Ignatius, et al--description of their battles with the gnostics in the church.) I think it's very hard to deny that Peter and Paul worked together in Rome late in their lives, with Peter staying in Rome for at least several years before being martyred. There are differences between John's churches (the ones listed in Revelation 2 & 3, for example) and Paul's (Ephesus, Rome, Philippi) that can be seen in the 2nd century, but nothing distinctively Peter's. Rome's church government was just like Ephesus and Philippi.Differences between Paul and John's churches were fought vigorously, with one Roman bishop attempting to excommunicate the entire eastern half of the Roman empire, in the early 100's, but resulted in a complete unity by at least AD 180, probably much earlier.I love early church history. Sorry if this is way overboard.Constantine didn't actually unite anything. He tried to solve a growing rift, started by Arius and Alexander (with Athanasius carrying the battle on for Alexander), but Nicea was no success. All Nicea did was get the government involved so the battle could become movie material, with bloody battles and political intrigue. Hollywood is really missing out on a great movie by never having covered that.The councils (and emperors' decrees) did end that rift over the rest of the 4th century.

Yeah, people say this a lot. You're basing this on Rom 3:9-19, and I can see why you would.I don't agree, but I don't know how to draw a solid conclusion. I would say that Rom 3:9-19 definitely speaks universally, but speaking universally when you don't mean "every single person without exception" happens all the time, including in the passages Paul is quoting there. (They say there's none that do good, no, not one, but then go on to mention the righteous.)You would, and did, say that "their conscience excusing them" is about what could, not what would, happen.I don't know how to resolve those two interpretations. I have nothing solidly conclusive to back me up, and your interpretation, which is most common today, but I don't think that's conclusive, either.It may not matter, though, because you go on to say: This would be the crux of the matter. I have to look at this. It raises some very interesting questions in my mind that have nothing to do with this thread.I still have to get back with you on something from post 30 that I don't even remember what it was, but it's in my mind to do, so I'll do both together, probably tomorrow evening.

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."

ok, that works too. well, the stuff i've heard would indicate not -- it's just that we only really have a record of one side. but then again, you seem better researched on this than i. yeah, it doesn't quite read gnostic, either. some have suggested it's similar to q, but it contains the wrong stuff to actually be it. ok, i'll take your word for it. i've never really sat down and tried to figure out what exactly were the philosophical differences between epistles and who was in what group, etc. (not a big epistle fan, really)

---

אָרַח

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."