Jesus Versus Paul

[davidk]

That's right. If God objectively exists, there is no need for faith in order for Him to.

 

A. He objectivly exists, unaffected by any of our individual reflections or feelings or faith, in contrast to B: His not existing.

 

It is true that it is the relating to God that takes our faith.

 

My statement is really about how we approach truth and being sure of what we think we know of the world is correct, Because if anything is true -A, then its opposite, B, is not true. This form of reasoning is basic logic in man's search of the truth.

 

It is which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of the answers we get to your questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all.

[JosephM]

That's right. If God objectively exists, there is no need for faith in order for Him to.

 

A. He objectivly exists, unaffected by any of our individual reflections or feelings or faith, in contrast to B: His not existing.

 

It is true that it is the relating to God that takes our faith.

 

My statement is really about how we approach truth and being sure of what we think we know of the world is correct, Because if anything is true -A, then its opposite, B, is not true. This form of reasoning is basic logic in man's search of the truth.

 

It is which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of the answers we get to your questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all.

 

These are not opposites as you have twisted Bill's words. He never agreed God objectively exists and neither did he say God didn't exist. He said I agree that God exists. The opposite being God doesn't exist. You have inserted the word "objectively" and then reasoned by your logic that you stated opposites.

 

Joseph

[Guest wayfarer2k]

That's right. If God objectively exists, there is no need for faith in order for Him to.

 

A. He objectivly exists, unaffected by any of our individual reflections or feelings or faith, in contrast to B: His not existing.

 

It is true that it is the relating to God that takes our faith.

 

My statement is really about how we approach truth and being sure of what we think we know of the world is correct, Because if anything is true -A, then its opposite, B, is not true. This form of reasoning is basic logic in man's search of the truth.

 

It is which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of the answers we get to your questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all.

 

Well, Davidk, I've already said that, yes, it's my conviction that God exists. God is, for me, ultimate Reality. So it makes no sense to say that Reality doesn't exist because the search for truth IS the search for reality, for what is real. Behind that search is, I believe, God.

 

But I still think that you are coming at truth from an unhelpful forensic standpoint. You are using terms such as "approaching truth", "being sure", "correct", "opposite", terms that are black and white with no shades of gray and no room for further searching or understanding. I don't think truth is quite so...accomodating...to your paradigm, my friend.

 

You seem to be putting forth an understanding of truth that is very modern, very much a part of the Enlightenment which says that the essential nature of truth is propositional - that truth must always be confined to the legalistic realm of verifiable/not verifiable; true/false; correct/incorrect, etc. Granted, one can view truth this way, but it is rather shortsighted.

 

Truth is, IMO, a much richer concept. While not sidelining the facet of truth that pertains to verfiability, there is another expression of truth that is more related to relationship, to faithfulness, to meaning and purpose.

 

For instance, if I asked you if you were being true to your spouse, what does this mean? It means much more than true/false, correct/incorrect. It means putting her interests above your own, being faithful to your relationship to her, being dependable, much as a ruler or wall could be called "true". It is right relationship to other things and people, not just judicial terms by which we make decisive judgments.

 

I don't know whether this distinction is important to you or not, but it is to me. So if someone asks me if I believe that the Bible is true and I reply, "yes", I am not saying that I think that everything in the Bible really happened or that everything in the Bible is moral or correct or verifiable. I am saying that I think the Bible shows us the Divine/human relationship and how we experience that relationship to be "true" or faithful or meaningful or fulfilling.

 

To me, the problem with conservative theology is that it is too myopic. It tries to reduce rich concepts and multi-faceted ideas down to one, and only one, meaning. It does this with "truth". It does this with Jesus' death. It does this with "heaven". It does this with "hell." Conservative theology tries so hard to make everything fit into nice, neat little boxes that it amputates both God and humans alike. The Bible is not a monolith. Neither is truth. None of us observe truth objectively. The nature of truth is that it invites us, not to observe it from outside, but to enter into it. When we do, it changes us.

 

Truth in the forensic context is uninvolved, safe, unpassionate, distant, untransformative, and, because it is detached, ultimately meaningless.

But truth in the relational context is inviting, risky, passionate, compelling, life-changing, and, because we become part of it, meaningful.

 

bill

[Guest wayfarer2k]

These are not opposites as you have twisted Bill's words. He never agreed God objectively exists and neither did he say God didn't exist. He said I agree that God exists. The opposite being God doesn't exist. You have inserted the word "objectively" and then reasoned by your logic that you stated opposites.

 

Joseph

 

You're right, Joseph, I didn't say that I agreed with Davidk that God "objectively exists", because I don't phrase it that way. I was just trying to get beyond the point that God exists so that our conversation could proceed.

 

bill

[JosephM]

Davidk,

 

The opposite of God objectively exists is God subjectively exists. English 101 - reference most any American dictionary and you will find that objectively and subjectively are 'antonym's' which is derived from a Greek word meaning 'a word having a meaning opposite to that of another word'. I assumed you know this but wanted to leave no doubt.

 

Now if you want to communicate and reason with procedural logic, instead of saying "God either objectively exists, or he doesn't. Very basic." , lets ask...

 

"Does God exist objectively or does God exist subjectively"

 

My experience indicates that God exists subjectively. Why? Because God is not visible as an object but rather seen as taking place in my mind rather than the external world. God is particular to a given person; personal and a subjective experience. If it were not so then God would be a material object or based on observable phenomena; presented factually so that we could all be in agreement rather than each having his/her own opinion based upon subjective feelings or intuition, not upon observation or reasoning, which can be influenced by preconception.

 

It seems to me that what each sees of God results from our personal mindset or experience, arising from perceptive mental conditions within the brain and not necessarily from external stimuli. Does this mean that God doesn't exist or is less real? No. On the contrary, it makes God more personal when one realizes God's presence. In my view, as sentient beings we can only experience God in this subjective, sentient way.

 

You may ask, Why doesn't everyone realize this or have these strong subjective experiences of God? It seems to me that for the most part, we are inhibited by our self making an idol of God by trying to make him objective through philosophy and theology to fit into an image.

 

Just something for you, Davidk. to reconsider your logic and view a different perspective so we can , as Bill says, move on.

 

Love Joseph

[Guest wayfarer2k]

"Does God exist objectively or does God exist subjectively"

 

Great post, Joseph.

 

I think you clarified the point that I was trying to make better than I could.

 

Nevertheless, and never missing an opportunity to put my foot in my mouth, I'd like to add a little bit more. I do think that God exists and that God is not an invention of the human mind and/or communal consciousness. But I am quick to say that, to me, this is a matter of faith or assumption, not something that I can imperically prove.

 

But I have to add, as I was trying to say before, that we don't experience God objectively, we experience God subjectively. We must always interpret our images, concepts, and experiences of God.

 

Now, it is true that, in the Bible, people claimed what might be called "objective proof" - the burning bush, shekinah glory in the temple, pillar of cloud by day, pillar of fire by night, audible voice, visions, and even the person of Jesus. But all of these "objective" manifestations caused people to enter into subjective relationship.

 

So the problem I see with the claim of "objectively exist" is that there is no way to get around that fact that objects must be interpreted subjectively if they are to mean anything to us. We can never remove ourselves completely from the equation. I think God designed it that way.

 

That is why I am uncomfortable with Davidk's phraseology. If God is, in some sense, love and spirit, then love and spirit are not things that "objectively exist." Surely they exist. But they are not known or experienced as objects, they are known and experienced subjectively in relationship.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

bill

 

PS - I know Davidk is interested in the subject of epistomology also. So I'd also like to say that I feel the same way about "truth", it does not "objectively exist", it is know and experienced through relationship. Hopefully, this will head off any misconceptions.

[davidk]

With all due respect, gentlemen, either God exists in objective reality, which is that God exists without the distortion of personal feelings or prejudices; or He does not exist.

 

If God does not exist in objective reality, then God is only a construct of man's imagination, purely subjective, fantasy; and what God man believes in is a lie.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

With all due respect, gentlemen, either God exists in objective reality, which is that God exists without the distortion of personal feelings or prejudices; or He does not exist.

 

If God does not exist in objective reality, then God is only a construct of man's imagination, purely subjective, fantasy; and what God man believes in is a lie.

 

Okay, Davidk, you've made your point. Thanks for the conversation.

 

bill

[JosephM]

With all due respect, gentlemen, either God exists in objective reality, which is that God exists without the distortion of personal feelings or prejudices; or He does not exist.

 

If God does not exist in objective reality, then God is only a construct of man's imagination, purely subjective, fantasy; and what God man believes in is a lie.

 

Davidk,

 

Thanks for the "gentlemen" consideration. Come on my friend, get over it , the only way you know God, 'as a man', is that God exists through your mind and senses and that would be subjectively. You are no different than I. As Bill said, and with all due respect, thanks for the conversation.

 

Love Joseph

[minsocal]

Davidk,

 

Thanks for the "gentlemen" consideration. Come on my friend, get over it , the only way you know God, 'as a man', is that God exists through your mind and senses and that would be subjectively. You are no different than I. As Bill said, and with all due respect, thanks for the conversation.

 

Love Joseph

 

Ohh ... so that's what "thanks for the converstion means". Never heard the term before. It has been directed towards me and I'll now take it in your context.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"Modern Christianity says that fish is Water and that Water is a fish. It says that Jesus is God and that God is Jesus. In doing so, I think we lose our understanding of both."

 

Should we make separate threads of a few of these topic? People may enjoy contributing, but they won't know these conversations are here, under Jesus Versus Paul.

 

Regarding the fully human - fully divine concept of Jesus:

 

Jesus is portrayed as much more divine in the book of John than in any of they other gospels. I always thought that was probably in response to people asking why they should follow Jesus, rather than any other good man. For me, God is uniquely present in the being of Jesus. Jesus is the window into God that helps me understand God better. Other humans have helped me glimpse God, as well, but I have benefited greatly by attempting to love my neighbor and my enemies and giving to anyone who asks, etc. Could it be a way of representing that Jesus was so connected to God and understood God so well it was like they were one?

 

Regarding Christ being our spiritual nature:

 

It was a new concept for me to think of the idea of Christ as being what was really important and the historical Jesus being irrelevant. Since I have long associated the name Jesus with the power that frees me from old destructive patterns I personally prefer it to the term Christ. The power of Jesus helps me to do things I never thought I could do myself.

 

I, too, had learned that Christ was the Greek translation of Messiah. Calling Jesus the Christ always seemed exclusionary to faithful Jewish people, who are still waiting for their promised Messiah. I have heard spiritual goals set where people desire to be more "Christ-like," and that sounds similar to the ubiquitous "What would Jesus do?", so maybe it's just a difference in language??

[davidk]

God does not exist in the mind alone, nor is God's existence modified or affected by anyone's personal view, mind or senses.

 

[Guest wayfarer2k]

God does not exist in the mind alone, nor is God's existence modified or affected by anyone's personal view, mind or senses.

 

 

I agree with this, Davidk. But we cannot know God objectively, only through subjectivity. God does exists, apart from our minds, views, and senses. I agree with that. But to know God, it does involve our minds, views, and senses. Therefore, there is God...and then there are human perceptions of God. Were the problems arise is when we try to make our perceptions of God into God himself. This is idolatry.

 

Similarly, the Bible is full of human perceptions of God - author's personal views, their thinking about God, their senses of God. There is God behind the Bible, but not everything the Bible says about God is true of God. If we don't realize this, we have turned the Bible into an idol.

 

bill

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Hi Janet.

 

>>Jesus is portrayed as much more divine in the book of John than in any of they other gospels. I always thought that was probably in response to people asking why they should follow Jesus, rather than any other good man.

 

This is an interesting subject: do we follow someone because of their authority or do we follow them because what they teach is, for us, true? I don’t think this question can be answered easily. It invites subjectivity, something that a lot of religious folks are afraid of.

 

The religious are often authoritarian-based. They do what their religious authorities say because those authorities have power over them, power of shame, power of physical harm, power of life or death, even power of heaven and hell. The religious obey, not because the teachings of the authorities are moral, just, or compassionate, but out of fear. To the religious, if God (as portrayed in religion) tells them to kill their enemies, the religious MUST obey without thought or critique. It is not permitted to question God because God is primarily an authority figure and God’s punishment for disobedience is so severe. They don’t question if the commands of the authority are good, righteous, life-affirming, or compassionate, they simply obey because someone has authority over them and they must, so they think, do what they are told – be it right or be it wrong.

 

The moralist has to deal with the difficulties of questioning authorities, not only external authorities who would wield power over them, but internal authorities of common sense, culture, parental influence, and conscience. They have to wrestle with the important questions of what is moral? What is just? What is compassionate? What is best? They don’t blindly follow an authority figure just because that figure may have power. They dare to question authority, especially if that authority seems to go against what is good, righteous, life-affirming, and compassionate. It is not so much obedience that the moralist gives as it is cooperation. Trust, not fear, is the motivation.

 

In my own life, I reached the point where I asked myself, “Do I desire to follow Jesus because he is God and he can send me to hell for disobedience…or do I desire to follow him because he was a person of excellent character who taught what I believe to be the truth about God and humanity?” I went with the latter. And that’s why I tend to look to the historical Jesus rather than an authoritative “Christ” figure.

 

>>For me, God is uniquely present in the being of Jesus. Jesus is the window into God that helps me understand God better. Other humans have helped me glimpse God, as well, but I have benefited greatly by attempting to love my neighbor and my enemies and giving to anyone who asks, etc. Could it be a way of representing that Jesus was so connected to God and understood God so well it was like they were one?

 

This resonates with me.

 

>>It was a new concept for me to think of the idea of Christ as being what was really important and the historical Jesus being irrelevant.

 

This sort of goes back to my opening post. For many conservatives, the historical Jesus is irrelevant, they don’t much care what he taught or how he lived. What they care about, which is reflected in Paul’s “Christ” theology, is that Jesus was merely a human sacrifice to God and that Jesus, as a historical person, doesn’t matter while Christ, as a union with God, is all that matters. And I’ve found it interesting that some progressives (but not all) hold to much the same view, that Jesus is irrelevant, but that Christ is all that matters. So I’ve found it ironic that for both ends of the spectrum, the conservatives and for some progressives, the person of Jesus is irrelevant. Christianity, as a religion, follows the Christ of Paul’s visions. Some folks in PC follow a Christ who, I suspect, is little more than a reflection of their own ego. It’s all very interesting and gives me much food for thought. 

 

bill

[davidk]

Bill,

I have come to you saying nothing other than that; Gods exists- apart from us, our minds, our views. our senses. That is exactly what is meant by "God objectively exists" (in contrast to His not existing). And it is precisely by our very subjectivity that we have the tendency to, perhaps inadvertantly, distort what is objectively true and end up making idols.

 

Because there is objective reality, our subjective little minds have real hope of encountering some real objective truths. If there were no objective reality, we would have no such hope. If everything were left to being only subjective, nothing would have any meaning.

 

p.s.; Any conservative Christian worth their salt, considers the historical Jesus highly relevent. Who could you have met that would make you would think otherwise?

[Guest wayfarer2k]

p.s.; Any conservative Christian worth their salt, considers the historical Jesus highly relevent. Who could you have met that would make you would think otherwise?

 

Mainly Baptist and Bible Church folk. If you ask them just about any question about Christianity, their reply is to turn, not to the historical Jesus, but to Paul. Whether the subject is God, Jesus, the church, sin, salvation, holiness, discipleship, the answer is still, usually, "Let's turn to what Paul says in the book of ...."

 

Good example. How is a person saved? None of these Christians cite what Jesus had to say about it. Instead, they turn to Rom 3:23; Rom 6:23; Rom 5:8; Rom 10:9.

 

They cite Paul's doctrine that everyone is a sinner, something Jesus never said. Jesus said that there were good and righteous people, and it had nothing to do with the kind of "imputed righteous" that Paul teaches.

 

They cite Paul's doctrine that all good works are filthy rags in God's sight, something Jesus never said and that James himself stood against.

 

They cite Paul's doctrine that someone is made right with God by faith, when Jesus said that people were approved or condemned based upon their good works.

 

They cite Paul's doctrine that humans have two natures - a sinful nature and a saint nauture, something Jesus never taught.

 

They cite Paul's doctrine that what really matters is believing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, while Jesus said that what really matters is loving God and others.

 

They cite Paul's doctrine that Jesus came only to die a sacrificial death to appease God's wrath, while Jesus taught that he came to preach the good news of God's kingdom.

 

They cite Paul's doctrine that slaves should remain slaves, while Jesus taught release for the captives.

 

They cite Paul's doctrine that Jesus should be worshipping as God, while Jesus taught that God alone should be worshipped.

 

They cite Paul's doctrine that women should be silent in the church, while Jesus taught the inclusion of women in his movement.

 

They cite Paul's condemnation of homosexuals, while Jesus didn't have one word to say about homosexuality.

 

They cite, supposedly according to 2 Tim 3:16, that the Bible has all authority, while Jesus claimed that he had authority.

 

I could go on and on, but the point is that Christianity doesn't seem to want to have much to do with the historical Jesus or even the search for the historical Jesus. Christianity considers Christ to be irrelevant except as a substitutionary atonement.

 

Granted, perhaps you travel in different conservative circles than I did, Davidk. But when Christianity thinks that for spiritual truth it must turn to Paul, who never met the historical Jesus, then I think it has been sidetracked to a different "Jesus."

 

bill

[rivanna]

Wayfarer,

 

I wanted to share a few thoughts about your posts, which I thought were very well articulated.

Your main concern seems to be perceiving a dichotomy between “salvation based on good works vs. salvation based on assenting to beliefs.”

 

I don’t see two different gospels, since Paul’s purpose was not to reiterate Jesus’ teachings, but to explain Jesus’ relevance in terms that would make sense to divergent cultures. About the objectionable parts of the letters, on women, gays, slaves, etc it's fairly established that they were inserted by later writers; several of the epistles attributed to Paul are not by him.

 

You say “Paul's doctrine is that someone is made right with God by faith, while Jesus said that people were approved or condemned based upon their good works.” Perhaps, but “good works” means acts that emanate from faith, trust in God. I don’t think Paul was “opposed to good works” but to self righteousness based on putting law above love. It’s not about anxiously performing deeds to win God’s approval, but realizing God already loves us and doing what that moves us to do.

 

Some of Jesus’ parables emphasize good works, others focus on God’s abundant love and acceptance-- the prodigal son, the friend at midnight, the Father’s good gifts, the treasure in the field, etc. Both aspects were needed.

 

“To accept the servant is to accept the message.” Yes, Jesus’ life and teachings are the reason he is called Lord. If Jesus had wanted his teachings to be a new set of rules, precisely formulated, he would have written them down himself.

 

“God is our heavenly Father, but his role as father has no counterpart whatsoever to human fathers. “ What about Jesus’ calling God “Abba” -- that intimacy was crucial to his ministry.

 

You say Paul’s Jesus seems to be mostly a “sacrifice to an angry god who refuses to forgive sins or interact with humans unless blood is spilt.” The Substitionary Atonement theory is a gross misunderstanding. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5 “in Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them … we entreat you, be reconciled to God.” Humanity needed to be appeased, God did not need to be appeased— the same idea was already in the Old Testament: God wants mercy, not sacrifice. In a way, Jesus is God’ s apology to mankind for the suffering built into our human nature and the world.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Welcome to this conversation, Rivanna! Good and welcome input!

 

I don’t see two different gospels, since Paul’s purpose was not to reiterate Jesus’ teachings, but to explain Jesus’ relevance in terms that would make sense to divergent cultures.

 

Interesting take on it, Rivanna. But I have to wonder how Paul could possibly think to "explain Jesus' relevance" by ignoring or downplaying Jesus' teachings? To me, that is like saying that we can understand Plato's relevance to modern culture without talking about what Plato thought or said. Jesus was an iternerant preacher/teacher. If Paul thought that he could somehow explain Jesus to different cultures by avoiding what Jesus taught and preached, then it is little wonder that, today, Christianity is mainly about Paul's views, not about Jesus' views. Just my take on it. Your mileage may vary.

 

About the objectionable parts of the letters, on women, gays, slaves, etc it's fairly established that they were inserted by later writers; several of the epistles attributed to Paul are not by him.

Good input. But I doubt this view could ever be accepted by a fundamentalist as he/she would believe that no matter who wrote the letters, God was the author anyway. Tricky thing, discussing historical criticism with a fundie.

 

I don’t think Paul was “opposed to good works” but to self righteousness based on putting law above love. It’s not about anxiously performing deeds to win God’s approval, but realizing God already loves us and doing what that moves us to do.

 

This has merit to me. But I wish someone would do a "progressive critique" of old apostle Paul to demonstrate that he didn't just make up his own "Jesus" and gospel. Maybe such a critique is out there, but I've never seen one. All I've seen about Paul is from the conservative side that says that the difference between Paul and Jesus is attributable to a change in covenants -- that Jesus taught under the Old Covenant and that Paul taught under the New. Unfortunately, such a paradigm makes all of Jesus' teachings irrelevant and obsolete.

 

“God is our heavenly Father, but his role as father has no counterpart whatsoever to human fathers. “ What about Jesus’ calling God “Abba” -- that intimacy was crucial to his ministry.

Actually, Rivanna, if you go back and read most post, I was arguing FOR the fatherhood of God. SOMEONE ELSE had said that God's fatherhood did not necessarily have any counterpart/congruity to human fatherhood. So I was responding that Jesus would not have taught truth with metaphors and similies that we beyond human grasp.

 

You say Paul’s Jesus seems to be mostly a “sacrifice to an angry god who refuses to forgive sins or interact with humans unless blood is spilt.” The Substitionary Atonement theory is a gross misunderstanding. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5 “in Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them … we entreat you, be reconciled to God.” Humanity needed to be appeased, God did not need to be appeased— the same idea was already in the Old Testament: God wants mercy, not sacrifice. In a way, Jesus is God’ s apology to mankind for the suffering built into our human nature and the world.

 

Hmmm, interesting. Something for me to chew on. Thanks. I'll think about this interpretation some.

 

bill

[rivanna]

Wayfarer,

 

Thanks for your response.

 

You said you wish there was a progressive view of Paul asserting that he didn’t make up his own Jesus and gospel, ignoring Jesus’ teachings. Marcus Borg's latest book is on Paul. Burton Mack's also has a good analysis.

 

The letters can’t be taken as a summary of Paul’s message – they were written to people who had already heard him speak, and the content of the letters was determined by them, not by him. If you’re questioning the divinity of Christ then I agree that Paul did take the Jesus movement to a new level--you could say the image of Christ was transformed from a historical person to a cosmic power. Calling Jesus Lord meant that Jesus, not Caesar, was the true power and authority. Still it seems like an overstatement to say that Jesus cannot be followed any more, only worshipped. He never wanted to be worshipped.

 

As you point out, Paul emphasized being saved by faith, but Jesus did too. He says “your faith has made you well” (or similar words) to the hemorrhaging woman, the leper, the blind men, the paralytic, the Canaanite mother, the centurion, etc. He cured those who trusted him. That doesn’t mean he didn’t want them to change their lives afterward. It probably happened naturally, as a result.

 

You say there is a conflict between Jesus and Paul on old vs. new covenant, and whether humans had a divided nature. Doesn’t Jesus say the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak?

 

Paul’s mission was to include Gentiles in the kingdom of God, which entailed freedom from the legal system of Judaism. He introduced the concept of sin not as breaking particular commandments, but as the human condition. This led to a dualistic view where the distinction was no longer between Jews / gentiles or Jews/ Christians, but between enslavement to sin and grace -- righteousness through faith.

 

To me the concept of personal salvation, if it still has meaning, refers to our inner state of mind & heart at any given time, not a one time decision or a final destiny. As one PC author puts it, “Am I saved? yes, sometimes. Am I damned? yes, sometimes. And Jesus came to show me I have a choice between the two.”

[davidk]

Hey bill,

Just a couple o' things to read over.

 

Jesus clearly says that salvation is received by faith in Him, plus nothing. Paul said it is through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus proclaimed everyone needs to repent, believe in Him, and to follow Him, saying He is the way and the truth and the life; and no one comes to the Father but by Him, or we will all die in our sins. Paul said the only way is through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through faith and obedience to Him. Jesus said to abide in Him, for apart from Him we can do nothing good. Paul said we are all sinners and Jesus Christ is our Savior. Jesus said we must be born again. Paul said we must become a new person. Jesus said no one has a greater love than this, that one lay down his life for His friends. Jesus said He came to give His life for the ransom of many with the power to raise Himself and sit at the right hand of the Father. Paul said the same thing. Jesus said He was God's Son and all things were handed over to Him by God, His Father. Jesus said He fulfills the Law, Paul said so, too. Paul says God made us adequate as servants (slaves) of a new covenant of the Spirit that gives life. Paul says men and women alike have all the full rights of being children of God. Jesus said He is the way regardless of gender. Jesus understood the differentiaion of gender was created for a reason, saying male and female were specifically made for a purpose. Paul says ignoring this differentiation is disobedience. Jesus said man lives on the authority of every word that proceeds from out of the mouth of God, and all His authority came by way of a personal gift from the Father.

 

I suppose I could go on. You're right, we can't ignore the historical Jesus, nor Paul. Both of them have related the same God's plan for man, it doesn't really matter if we like it or not. It is not about our sensibilities, anyway; it's about God's; and it is understandable. It's all being done at the behest of a loving God.

 

Dk

[October's Autumn]

I don't see two different gospels, since Paul's purpose was not to reiterate Jesus' teachings...

 

 

Especially considering that Paul's letters are older than the gospels... The NT makes more sense if we put it in order of what it was actually written. Genuine Pauline letters first, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John... Revelations gets to stay at the end... off the top of my head I'm not sure what order the rest go in...

[October's Autumn]

According to one, this is the order of writing.

 

Galatians (A. D. 49)

 

James (A. D. 50)

 

1 Thessalonians (A. D. 51)

 

2 Thessalonians (A. D. 52)

 

1 Corinthians (A. D. 55)

 

2 Corinthians (A. D. 57)

 

Romans (A. D. 57)

 

Mark (late 50s - early 60s)

 

Matthew (late 50s - early 60s)

 

Luke (A. D. 60-61)

 

Colossians (A. D. 61)

 

Philemon (A. D. 61)

 

Ephesians (A. D. 61)

 

Philippians (A. D. 62)

 

 

 

I Timothy (A. D. 63)

 

Acts (A. D. 63)

 

Hebrews (A. D. 64)

 

Titus (A. D. 65)

 

John (A. D. 65)

 

1 John (A. D. 65)

 

2 John (A. D. 65)

 

3 John (A. D. 65)

 

1 Peter (A. D. 65)

 

2 Timothy (A. D. 67)

 

2 Peter (A. D. 67)

 

Jude (A. D. 68)

 

Revelation (A.D. 70)

 

Those are all very early dates from what I remember. But the order is plausible.

[Javelin]

I asked this question in passing in another thread and thought it might be interesting to discuss it further in it's own thread. Was Paul's gospel difference from Jesus' gospel? Was Paul's understanding of salvation and eternal life different from what Jesus taught? Was Paul's understanding of justification different from Jesus' understanding of it? Here are a couple of passages that have me wondering:

 

Just another thought, or point of view, for consideration.

 

This issue is highly relevant to me due to my pharisaical legalistic background. I affiliated with a legalistic, saved by works, every word found in scripture is literally God breathed and must be followed precisely in order to be saved, group of believers for more than 20 years. I don't know if that kind of religion will save anyone but I can personally attest to the fact that it will drive you crazy.

 

The bible, in the hands of a skilled person, can be used to prove any number of theological beliefs. Leaving the group I was affiliated with was one thing, convincing myself that my salvation wasn't dependent upon my ability to keep all the laws, rules, and commands that could be found in scripture was another matter.

 

During my research I became aware of a duel gospel theory, which is the focus of this topic. Paul's teaching was clearly different. There had to be a reason and I focused my research on that question.

 

The dispensationalist (hyper) presented, at least to my satisfaction, the most plausible theory. Admittedly, after further research I've modified my personal understanding of this issue.

 

I'm not convinced that Paul and Jesus were teaching different gospels, but their messages were different because they were intended for different cultures. I eventually came to the conclusion that it is all about context. The Jewish believers saw, and understood, Christ in a very different context from Paul's Gentile believers.

 

The Jews understood their Messiah would be a King and restore the throne of David. The gospels portray Jesus as a King and ONE of His missions was to establish a Kingdom. The other part of His mission was to complete, or fulfill, the law so that it might be set aside. I have come to believe that is the key to understanding the appearance of duel gospels being taught.

 

The Jews saw Jesus in the context of a Messiah King. The Gentiles saw Jesus in the context of a Messiah Savior. Whether or not the Jews, of the first century, accepted Jesus Divinity is open to speculation. By the second century history indicates they did not.

 

Paul became the father of present day Christianity. The Jewish believers (later identified as Ebionites) were declared heretical and destroyed, along with their writings, in the fifth century by Roman-Pauline Christian believers.

 

Here is a link, for those that may be interested, that I found. I think the author makes a creditable case for his theory.

 

http://www.matthewmc...g/2gospels.html

 

 

Deleted the following accidental double post by Javelin - JosephM (as Moderator)

[JosephM]

Thanks for the input Javelin,

 

In my view, a most excellent point. I would share in that same understanding you have reached.

 

Joseph

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"In my own life, I reached the point where I asked myself, “Do I desire to follow Jesus because he is God and he can send me to hell for disobedience…or do I desire to follow him because he was a person of excellent character who taught what I believe to be the truth about God and humanity?” I went with the latter. And that’s why I tend to look to the historical Jesus rather than an authoritative “Christ” figure."

 

Bill, It's good this thread had new content, because I missed your comments to me in April. I am right with you on all this! Your comment about how some PCs probably follow a Jesus that reflects their own ego is what struck me. I'll be looking to see if that is true about myself... I'm sure it is, to some extent...