Paulinity or Christianity?

[brownprose]

nice input.

My thoughts...

Jesus never made a clear stand on how they should treat Moses and the prophets. But in the book of Matthew we find a verse that somehow gives light to this issue. There, in that verse it says," I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it".

The nature of the Mosaic Law has three sides 1) the regulatory/ritualistic/ceremonial side 2) the Decalogue (Commandments) side 3) the revelatory or eschatological side. It was the revelatory side of the law in which Jesus made reference to since everything was already laid down/fulfilled by Moses except the prophecy about his divinity. Proof of the revelatory side of the law are as follows:

- Lk. 24:44 "...everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
- Mt. 5:17-18 (I'm expanding the verse (you) offered): “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished”

To elucidate the verse given, the term "fulfill" in Hebrew is pleroo alluding to the prophetic side of the law. You see, Matthew would have used the word "confirm the law" instead of fulfill the law if Jesus was indeed referring to the ceremonial law or the decalogue.

Common sense also tells us that as a faithful Jew,Jesus performed the obligatory judaistic practices and customs. Therefore to me,we can safely say that Jesus never had any intentions of demolishing Moses and the prophets.

You are correct...but one must remember that Jesus was prophesied as the Messiah whom the prophets foretold to be one "born under the law." Thus, it wasn't just simply a matter of compliance to the ordinances or traditions but it was a matter of him being the fulfillment of the law and the prophesy. Hence, the observance of Jewish practices was just only secondary, incidental and at best a practical act for Jesus to be understood by the Jews during his ministry.

Naturally the Apostles simply followed what their master was doing and preached what their master taught.

Actually, it was customary for Jesus and the apostles being Jews to observe the rites and traditions taught by Moses. Jesus didn't have to tell/remind himself or the Apostles all the time about those ordinances. The only crucial time when Jesus spoke of Moses' Law was when Jesus was questioned for healing during the Sabbath and when he was asked about the greatest commandment in which he replied and gave the greatest commandment of all which is LOVE.

The rest of Jesus ministry was spent on healing people, teaching parables and teaching new virtues than wallow in a fruitless discussion with the Pharisees about the law.

In other words they never excluded Moses while teaching about Jesus.

Yes. But they thought that teaching people to follow Jesus and to follow Moses' Law was enough to carry out the Christian faith in other regions. But they were proven wrong. They found that it was difficult for non-Jews to follow the rigid practices of the Jews until they were told by Paul in Antioch in which Peter found merit in Paul's points against those laws. "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:6-11)

Came Paul...who never was with Jesus,never heard Jesus' teachings and after conversion never went to Jerusalem to learn from the Apostles. Only after 3 years did he went to see the apostles. and according to him in the book of galatians that his gospel is not from men and nobody taught him about it,that includes The apsotles, but he claimed it to be a direct revelation from Jesus.

Yes. Paul was never one of the original disciples. He even was involved in the persecution of the early Christians. I think his being not part of the original disciples is an issue. Jesus or God had a way of choosing people to do the job. Paul's appointment had a particular or special reason in the same way he chose dubious personalities in the Old Testament as Moses (who described himself to be slow of speech and slow of tongue), King Solomon, Jonah etc.

Paul's appointment in this case was meant to dissipate the biases of early Christians who were blinded mostly of the old and rigid traditions of the Jews. Paul's independence of thought was crucial to establish restraint among Jewish Christians to be more tolerant and considerate to Christians who did not belong to their tribe or legion.

further research in the bible will show us that Paul had conflicts with the apostles and Jewish christian. I believe that this conflict is due to the fact that Paul preached a different christianity than what the Apostles taught.

This is true. These differences were not really "irreconcilable differences." In fact the Bible is explicit that that though Paul was in many instances in conflict with the Apostles and other Christians they were able to finally come to terms with each other where both had to respect the practices of the Jewish Christians and the Gentile converts.

Unpleasantries among believers are not always bad if only to prove that we are NOT PERFECT. The beauty of such unpleasantries between Paul and Peter was that they never used such imperfections to hate each other but to strengthen their resolve to preach the Gospel despite the adversity and diversity of points of view.

Salam!

[grovestreet]

i didn't really get much deeper into studying the history of christianity but based from your research, is it true that most of Jesus' life stories have been mixed with astrotheological myths? like what most of the movie zeitgeist claims about the equinox? and the Jesus and Joseph the dreamer as parallel characters?.

[Malic]

asalam alaikum, sadeek malic. keifal hal? inta kuayyees? alhamdullah.

which christianity are you referring to? roman catholicism? then yes, i would agree that its basic foundation would be from the fantasies of Saul of Tarsus a.k.a. Paul. but i would disagree that all of christianity was influenced by paul. for i believe that the 12 apostles (the ones who saw and interacted with Jesus the Christ) spread throughout the kingdoms of the world and preached the Jesus' gospels the way they received it from him.

after Jesus' death, the first Christian sect (as it was called then because it wasn't a religion yet) was succeeded by Jesus' brother, James the Just.

Wa alaykum salam sadiq. Alhamdollilah!

I was referring to Roman catholicism and everything that comes after it. Thank you for asking that question. It somehow put the discussion in the right perspective.

Correct sir,the Sect succeeded by James the just was the original christian church and taught the true message of Jesus the christ.

[Malic]

The nature of the Mosaic Law has three sides 1) the regulatory/ritualistic/ceremonial side 2) the Decalogue (Commandments) side 3) the revelatory or eschatological side. It was the revelatory side of the law in which Jesus made reference to since everything was already laid down/fulfilled by Moses except the prophecy about his divinity. Proof of the revelatory side of the law are as follows:

- Lk. 24:44 "...everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
- Mt. 5:17-18 (I'm expanding the verse (you) offered): “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished”

To elucidate the verse given, the term "fulfill" in Hebrew is pleroo alluding to the prophetic side of the law. You see, Matthew would have used the word "confirm the law" instead of fulfill the law if Jesus was indeed referring to the ceremonial law or the decalogue.[/b]

thank you for the effort of expounding the verse.

The verse that was given if read in its entirety would show us a different context. Take for example the verse in number 19 allow me to quote it---Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. From this point of view we see a different context. The law mentioned here is the regulatory law. In other words Jesus the christ never had any intentions of abolishing the laws. The fact that He said that breaking these laws and teaching men to do so will be called the least in the kingdom of God.

Jesus then is for the Law and is not in favor of teaching other people to break these laws. Thus we see the Apostles and Jewish christians observing the Laws.

Saul or Paul(his roman name) who claimed to have seen Jesus and who said in his letter to the Galatian

chapter 1:11-12 " But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

verses 17,18,19-- Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

from these verses...we can extract an idea of where he after conversion got his gospel.

He didnt went up to Jerusalem to learned from the Apostles the teachings of Jesus Christ but he claimed that he received a revelation from Jesus. In other words according to him that his gospel was a direct revelation from Jesus. The result of that was a sharp conflict. The Apsotles were following Jewish-christianity espoused by Jesus himself on the other hand Paul who never had the chance to learn from the apostles gave a different version of christianity.

So we cant avoid to ask this question..."Who holds the true teachings of Jesus"? Paul who never saw Jesus,claimed that his gospel was never taught by any men including the Apostles or The Jewish christian who saw and heard Jesus? I go for the latter.

You are correct...but one must remember that Jesus was prophesied as the Messiah whom the prophets foretold to be one "born under the law." Thus, it wasn't just simply a matter of compliance to the ordinances or traditions but it was a matter of him being the fulfillment of the law and the prophesy. Hence, the observance of Jewish practices was just only secondary, incidental and at best a practical act for Jesus to be understood by the Jews during his ministry.

But Jesus pointed them to follow the laws of Moses. If Jesus never had any intentions of abolishing the law then it follows that it places a great importance in the christian faith and should be followed but of course we can see that Paul changed all that.

Actually, it was customary for Jesus and the apostles being Jews to observe the rites and traditions taught by Moses. Jesus didn't have to tell/remind himself or the Apostles all the time about those ordinances. The only crucial time when Jesus spoke of Moses' Law was when Jesus was questioned for healing during the Sabbath and when he was asked about the greatest commandment in which he replied and gave the greatest commandment of all which is LOVE.

The rest of Jesus ministry was spent on healing people, teaching parables and teaching new virtues than wallow in a fruitless discussion with the Pharisees about the law.

Correct sir,it was customary for them as Jews. But we need to be reminded that even the converts to judaism were required to submit to the laws. In other words these laws were never exclusive to those born jews only. And i believe that thats the same thing going over in the mind of the Jewish christians. If one wishes to convert to christianity then accept Jesus teachings(emphasis on virtues) and follow Moses.

I think one of Jesus's mission was to put Judaism in the right perspective. People of those days including the Pharisees were so focused in the laws that they have forgotten stuffs like love,tolerance,relationship and all the likes. Then some legalists were adding to the commandments w/c is a wrong interpretation of the laws so Jesus had to teach them the right context and application. But again abolishing the law was never his intention. Paul changed all that.

Yes. But they thought that teaching people to follow Jesus and to follow Moses' Law was enough to carry out the Christian faith in other regions. But they were proven wrong. They found that it was difficult for non-Jews to follow the rigid practices of the Jews until they were told by Paul in Antioch in which Peter found merit in Paul's points against those laws. "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:6-11)

This is the account of the council in Jerusalem.

If we follow through the story found in Acts,it is recorded that the council headed by James wrote an ordinance. In that ordinance was written that they were allowed to enter christianity w/o having to go through circumsicion,hehe. But they were still instructed to follow some ordinances taken from the Law. What conclusion can we arrived here?

for me...The Gentiles who are new to christianity should be allowed to enter to the faith w/o requiring them to follow circumsicion as a prerequisite for entering to the new faith.

let me illustrate...in most protestant and evangelical circles baptism at first is not required for you to enter their religion. Baptism comes only later as a requirement for fulfilling all righteousness,as done by Jesus. Baptism then becomes an important rite if one wish to fulfill the ordinances of God.

Same principle applied for the Gentile christian in relation to the Torah.

Yes. Paul was never one of the original disciples. He even was involved in the persecution of the early Christians. I think his being not part of the original disciples is an issue. Jesus or God had a way of choosing people to do the job. Paul's appointment had a particular or special reason in the same way he chose dubious personalities in the Old Testament as Moses (who described himself to be slow of speech and slow of tongue), King Solomon, Jonah etc.

Paul became an issue or should i say, he became a problem to the jewish christian when he started teaching a different Gospel, a gospel w/c he claimed was a direct revelation from Jesus and the apostles had nothing to do with it,or the apostles never taugh it to him.

Paul's appointment in this case was meant to dissipate the biases of early Christians who were blinded mostly of the old and rigid traditions of the Jews. Paul's independence of thought was crucial to establish restraint among Jewish Christians to be more tolerant and considerate to Christians who did not belong to their tribe or legion.

There must be a succession of knowledge. Its hard for the apostles to accept Paul's idea because it contradicts an established knowledge which they saw being followed by their master himself.

This is true. These differences were not really "irreconcilable differences." In fact the Bible is explicit that that though Paul was in many instances in conflict with the Apostles and other Christians they were able to finally come to terms with each other where both had to respect the practices of the Jewish Christians and the Gentile converts.

Unpleasantries among believers are not always bad if only to prove that we are NOT PERFECT. The beauty of such unpleasantries between Paul and Peter was that they never used such imperfections to hate each other but to strengthen their resolve to preach the Gospel despite the adversity and diversity of points of view.

Salam!

It turn out to be irreconcilable. History can tell us that there was a sharp argument between Paul and the church in Jerusalem specially with James and Barnabbas.

After many years by the time the Gentile church gained power they started to accuse the Jerusalem church as Heretics.


Salam!

[seven_segment]

only if Jesus had time to write...

[regnauld]

only if Jesus had time to write...

OT: If Jesus were present today, we would not recognized him at all coz he will be wearing jeans and a t-shirt with sun glasses. That's cool. Probably he would be spending his time in the internet ENLIGHTENING the righteous and hypocrites!

[seven_segment]

If Jesus were present today, we would not recognize him at all coz he will be wearing jeans and a t-shirt with sun glasses. That's cool. Probably he would be spending his time in the internet ENLIGHTENING the righteous and hypocrites!

that would be a different story brod...hehehe

again...if only Jesus had time to write...

reading behind, the TS forgot that Paul teaches us about what he have experienced/witnessed/learned with the Risen Lord Jesus...

making me think...Paulinity is incomparable to Christianity...not to be compared....

[regnauld]

that would be a different story brod...hehehe

again...if only Jesus had time to write...

reading behind, the TS forgot that Paul teaches us about what he have experienced/witnessed/learned with the Risen Lord Jesus...

making me think...Paulinity is incomparable to Christianity...not to be compared....

what's TS brod?

[seven_segment]

what's TS brod?

threadstarter...to be exact its sadiq malic

[regnauld]

threadstarter...to be exact its sadiq malic

ok. thanks for the clarification.