Paulinity or Christianity?

[brownprose]

---

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.

Interesting find you got there bro. My take on that is that Jesus was talking both the prophetic side of the law (fulfillment) and the law pertaining to the commandments. If you read further Matthew 15:17 and onwards, you will see Jesus after discussing the prophetic side of the law, he was very specific about the commandments (Decalogue) on murder, adultery, etc. And you are right, Jesus never said of abolishing the commandments (Decalogue) in fact he even clarified them if you read further in 21-27. BUT he did change some of Moses' Law.

Let's read up Matt. 17:31-32 - 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

In the Old Testament it was okay to divorce one's spouse for very petty reasons but Jesus changed all that by setting the condition of divorce which is infidelity.

Matt 17:38-42 - 38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Again, in the Old Testament an "eye for an eye" was one of the fundamentals principles used to exact justice. But Jesus changed that too.

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.

Jesus approached the Law in the wise that is 1) CLARIFICATORY (Decalogue) 2) CORRECTIVE/AMENDATORY (Ceremonial Laws and Ordinances) 3) ACTUALIZING/FULFILLING (The Prophesy)

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.

True. Scholars are divided as to the authenticity of Paul as a true Apostle of Jesus. Some say that his self-declaration of apostleship is a braggadacio he wanted for himself to ride on the Christian euphoria emerging during that time.

I tend to differ though in that Paul was already an accomplished man before he became a Christian. Besides, he knew exactly the consequence of his actions knowing that Christianity, although popular at the time, it was also its height of terrible persecution. Nevertheless, most of Paul's writings were indeed radical but one has to recognize that Paul was once a "Gentile" and only wanted to make Christianity without the shade of ethnicity and burden to people who were strangers to the Judaic culture. Paul was perfectly aware that a culture embedded for the last 2,000 years or so in the Jewish system was too laborious to adopt for non-Jewish Christians and that Christianity is not about being necessarily Judaistic but being all-embracing to all people regardless of culture and I find no fault with such brand of Christianity.

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

Generally speaking, most Christians say that Paul's writings were also divinely inspired thus their inclusion in the canon. Hence, the claims by Paul which he said to be "direct revelation from Jesus" has been accepted by most theologians in the Christendom to be eventful and credible.

A great deal of Jewish scholars on the other hand assert that Paul was said to be responsible for the apostasy of the church - and that he may be the root of all division of modern-day Christianity. On a personal note, that idea appeals to me...we Lutherans were also blamed for all the trouble that Martin caused in the Reformation

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.

Right. And yes, it was but natural for Paul to be in conflict with the Apostles because he never liked the idea that Christianity be practiced in the way they were practiced by the Christian Jews. But I believe Jesus never espoused a purely Jewish-based Christianity. Many of Jesus' teachings speak of love for people like the Gentiles, the Samaritans and even love for the enemies. In his ministry to the gentiles, he never asked them to convert to Judaism first for them to follow him.

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.

Anywhere you choose (Judaeo-Christianity or Pauline), I think it is less of an issue. God does not see it like the way we do. And I strongly think that whatever that is in our hearts is truly what matters to Him.

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.

The law maybe of great importance - but there is one law that is above it. And that is the law of love. Jesus places love to be the greatest of all the commandments as it is the very heart to which God would like to see - than just being rigorously obedient. After all, like in any relationship it is not how much you do that counts but as to how much you love.

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.

To be converted to Judaism and to be converted to Christianity are two distinct issues. What makes it very complicated is when you place the convert to become a Christian at the same time observe Jewish traditions. Also, in the olden times, to convert a non-Jew was easy because they nearly share the same culture and language and they were just "next town" so to speak. But conversion to Judaism is rare in the Bible. Early Jews were particularly tribalistic and selective. They treat non-Jews as aliens although they lived in the same region. Mingling with aliens was also considered "defiled" or unclean. But then again, yes...one can get converted to Judaism when willing to submit to the laws and rituals etc but as I have said, it was not as difficult 2,000 years later.

Times were changing during Paul and the Apostles. They had to travel distant areas where they need to learn their language and understand their political and belief systems. The conflict arose between Paul and Peter because they were practically confused how to deal with willing-to-be- Christians but were unwilling to be circumcised thus it had to take a Council to resolve the issue. Paul opposed that it was too much of a requirement since Christ never died for the law...he died not for the love of the law but for the love of man.

Peter then concurred in this wise: "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."

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.

Yes and right on target sir. And remember, Jesus was speaking mostly to the Jews at the time. Jesus really wanted to tell them (Jews particularly) that how meticulous they were about that the law that they eventually forgot about God.

But again abolishing the law was never his intention. Paul changed all that.

Yes. Jesus never wanted to abolish the law. But Jesus did change some of them s pointed earlier.

Paul only wanted to make a change -- a change in the manner of conversion which is open for all but without the burden of the laws and traditions only Jews could observe. Besides, Jesus never commanded to follow him in the fashion of Judaism.

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.

Agree. And you are also right about following some ordinances. But then again the message is clear that Peter recognize the wisdom of Paul's concern about strictly Judaistic.

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.

Agree except on what you said "Baptism then becomes an important rite if one wish to fulfill the ordinances of God." I'm not sure about this. Maybe we can ask the evangelicals here. I'm Lutheran by the way and we have different views about ordinances. The seventh-day, I think has these ordinances are -- abstinence in pork...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. 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.

Paul and the Apostles teachings only vary on the mechanics but I think it is important that they share a common ground -- Christ. Judaistic Christianity or Pauline...makes no difference for me. Just my thought lang.

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.

It was long standing BUT NOT IRRECONCILABLE. In fact, the conflict between Paul and Peter (including Barnabas) has been taught as examples by many Christian denominations how disagreements can finally be resolved without being disagreeable.

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

My views are converse on this issue...neverheless, it's a scholarly opinion sir ....and a good one no less. Salam!

[YellowSubmarine]

Maybe. I'm still studying the Esoteric Christianity! I would say perhaps yes! Jesus came here to ENLIGHTEN us just like Buddha!

and I would again disagree.. Jesus came to save mankind

[grovestreet]

^^ well he didn't do a good job saving mankind coz today's mankind also needs saving.

[YellowSubmarine]

actually he did a great job.. we were given a choice, to believe or to reject.. as to those who had put their trust in him is surely saved.. those who didn't, well they are not..

[regnauld]

actually he did a great job.. we were given a choice, to believe or to reject.. as to those who had put their trust in him is surely saved.. those who didn't, well they are not..

You mean to say those who didn't put their trust in him are in hell now? what a poor judgment!

[Malic]

Interesting find you got there bro. My take on that is that Jesus was talking both the prophetic side of the law (fulfillment) and the law pertaining to the commandments. If you read further Matthew 15:17 and onwards, you will see Jesus after discussing the prophetic side of the law, he was very specific about the commandments (Decalogue) on murder, adultery, etc. And you are right, Jesus never said of abolishing the commandments (Decalogue) in fact he even clarified them if you read further in 21-27. BUT he did change some of Moses' Law.

Let's read up Matt. 17:31-32 - 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

In the Old Testament it was okay to divorce one's spouse for very petty reasons but Jesus changed all that by setting the condition of divorce which is infidelity.

Matt 17:38-42 - 38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Again, in the Old Testament an "eye for an eye" was one of the fundamentals principles used to exact justice. But Jesus changed that too.



Jesus approached the Law in the wise that is 1) CLARIFICATORY (Decalogue) 2) CORRECTIVE/AMENDATORY (Ceremonial Laws and Ordinances) 3) ACTUALIZING/FULFILLING (The Prophesy)



True. Scholars are divided as to the authenticity of Paul as a true Apostle of Jesus. Some say that his self-declaration of apostleship is a braggadacio he wanted for himself to ride on the Christian euphoria emerging during that time.

I tend to differ though in that Paul was already an accomplished man before he became a Christian. Besides, he knew exactly the consequence of his actions knowing that Christianity, although popular at the time, it was also its height of terrible persecution. Nevertheless, most of Paul's writings were indeed radical but one has to recognize that Paul was once a "Gentile" and only wanted to make Christianity without the shade of ethnicity and burden to people who were strangers to the Judaic culture. Paul was perfectly aware that a culture embedded for the last 2,000 years or so in the Jewish system was too laborious to adopt for non-Jewish Christians and that Christianity is not about being necessarily Judaistic but being all-embracing to all people regardless of culture and I find no fault with such brand of Christianity.



Generally speaking, most Christians say that Paul's writings were also divinely inspired thus their inclusion in the canon. Hence, the claims by Paul which he said to be "direct revelation from Jesus" has been accepted by most theologians in the Christendom to be eventful and credible.

A great deal of Jewish scholars on the other hand assert that Paul was said to be responsible for the apostasy of the church - and that he may be the root of all division of modern-day Christianity. On a personal note, that idea appeals to me...we Lutherans were also blamed for all the trouble that Martin caused in the Reformation



Right. And yes, it was but natural for Paul to be in conflict with the Apostles because he never liked the idea that Christianity be practiced in the way they were practiced by the Christian Jews. But I believe Jesus never espoused a purely Jewish-based Christianity. Many of Jesus' teachings speak of love for people like the Gentiles, the Samaritans and even love for the enemies. In his ministry to the gentiles, he never asked them to convert to Judaism first for them to follow him.



Anywhere you choose (Judaeo-Christianity or Pauline), I think it is less of an issue. God does not see it like the way we do. And I strongly think that whatever that is in our hearts is truly what matters to Him.



The law maybe of great importance - but there is one law that is above it. And that is the law of love. Jesus places love to be the greatest of all the commandments as it is the very heart to which God would like to see - than just being rigorously obedient. After all, like in any relationship it is not how much you do that counts but as to how much you love.



To be converted to Judaism and to be converted to Christianity are two distinct issues. What makes it very complicated is when you place the convert to become a Christian at the same time observe Jewish traditions. Also, in the olden times, to convert a non-Jew was easy because they nearly share the same culture and language and they were just "next town" so to speak. But conversion to Judaism is rare in the Bible. Early Jews were particularly tribalistic and selective. They treat non-Jews as aliens although they lived in the same region. Mingling with aliens was also considered "defiled" or unclean. But then again, yes...one can get converted to Judaism when willing to submit to the laws and rituals etc but as I have said, it was not as difficult 2,000 years later.

Times were changing during Paul and the Apostles. They had to travel distant areas where they need to learn their language and understand their political and belief systems. The conflict arose between Paul and Peter because they were practically confused how to deal with willing-to-be- Christians but were unwilling to be circumcised thus it had to take a Council to resolve the issue. Paul opposed that it was too much of a requirement since Christ never died for the law...he died not for the love of the law but for the love of man.

Peter then concurred in this wise: "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."



Yes and right on target sir. And remember, Jesus was speaking mostly to the Jews at the time. Jesus really wanted to tell them (Jews particularly) that how meticulous they were about that the law that they eventually forgot about God.



Yes. Jesus never wanted to abolish the law. But Jesus did change some of them s pointed earlier.

Paul only wanted to make a change -- a change in the manner of conversion which is open for all but without the burden of the laws and traditions only Jews could observe. Besides, Jesus never commanded to follow him in the fashion of Judaism.



Agree. And you are also right about following some ordinances. But then again the message is clear that Peter recognize the wisdom of Paul's concern about strictly Judaistic.



Agree except on what you said "Baptism then becomes an important rite if one wish to fulfill the ordinances of God." I'm not sure about this. Maybe we can ask the evangelicals here. I'm Lutheran by the way and we have different views about ordinances. The seventh-day, I think has these ordinances are -- abstinence in pork...etc.



Paul and the Apostles teachings only vary on the mechanics but I think it is important that they share a common ground -- Christ. Judaistic Christianity or Pauline...makes no difference for me. Just my thought lang.



It was long standing BUT NOT IRRECONCILABLE. In fact, the conflict between Paul and Peter (including Barnabas) has been taught as examples by many Christian denominations how disagreements can finally be resolved without being disagreeable.



My views are converse on this issue...neverheless, it's a scholarly opinion sir ....and a good one no less. Salam!

After reading, I did some evaluation of your position. I must say that you are a good thinker and a nice christian too with a balanced perspective.

No need for me to discuss further because as i see it you are flexible and you acknowledge that indeed there is a difference between Pauline and Judeo christianity.

Actually this thread is for those christians who insist that there is no difference between judeo christianity and Pauline christianity.


thank you for sharing your thoughts to us sir.


But let me add my personal note about the verses in Matthew...

The case on adultery and Divorce- I prefer the word ADDITION over CHANGE. Let me explain.

Matt. 17:31-32 - 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

The one in bold i believe is what was written in the OT and what comes after that was Jesus' statement. Here we see that Jesus did not changed the Mosaic law but He ADDED something on it. It was not totally a new law. but just like what you said earlier that in this verse Jesus defined the premise of divorce because the Jews of that time were divorcing their wives for petty reasons.


Matt 17:38-42 - 38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.


The one in bold is again i believe is what was written in OT.

For me...I dont think Jesus changed this law. Let me again explain.

here is the OT version of that law

Exodus 21-22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This is a crime law in the state of Israel during that time.

Jesus' intention upon adding his own statement was not to changed this state criminal law because changing it would mean that the offender is not held reliable for the crime he committed and should be forgiven at all time "do not resist an evil person? and give the other cheek?" .

the effect is...if someone rapes a girl we should give the offender another girl(give the other cheek),that would be wrong.

Rather the addition was...Jesus's intention was to give the offended a choice to forgive the offender they should not seek for revenge but to seek justice the right way.

Again as i said earlier in my previous post Jesus was putting the Mosaic law in the right perspective because the Jews were giving a legalistic interpretations of those laws.

Salam!

[Alel]

OT: 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!

...And that would be John Lennon.

But instead of spending his time on the Internet, he would be enlightening people by posting videos of him singing "Imagine" on YouTube, Vimeo, etc. etc. ...

"Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."


(Diba Bro Nasyo...Hehehe)

[YellowSubmarine]

You mean to say those who didn't put their trust in him are in hell now? what a poor judgment!

no.. those who die in there sins are in a place reserved for them but it's not hell.. even Satan is not in hell yet

[regnauld]

no.. those who die in there sins are in a place reserved for them but it's not hell.. even Satan is not in hell yet

what is that place then? and where is satan now?

[YellowSubmarine]

what is that place then? and where is satan now?

I don't know.. I'm a christian I follow Christ not Satan so you should not ask me where Satan is