Can you reject Paul and still be a "Christian"?

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Jesus taught grace through faith as the method of justification. Peter and John echoed it as well as Paul.

Jesus didn't even use the word Grace actually... how does one teach such a thing without using the word you're teaching?

Well, did Jesus teach that people had to earn their way to heaven? Then salvation would be a wage owed to man. If it's given to man by a good loving God is spite of what man has earned and deserves it's grace. Grace is simplified as receiving from God what we do not deserve and not receiving from God that which we do deserve.

Jesus illustrated this theological point to His disciples when sitting in the temple watching the Pharisee and the Publican. He told them the Publican left justified, not the Pharisee.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by thePharaoh

 

Your thinking about Peter... Paul was imprisoned in Rome and was beheaded apparently when Nero was in power.. He got a lighter death because he was a Roman citizen.

Both were executed under Nero's rule.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by thePharaoh

 

Your thinking about Peter... Paul was imprisoned in Rome and was beheaded apparently when Nero was in power.. He got a lighter death because he was a Roman citizen.

Both were executed under Nero's rule.

both!!

that dude really was ridiculous...

nice to see that glorified members of the church were martyrs under neros rule

i got chills lol.... that dude was one wrong ruler

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

Jesus taught grace through faith as the method of justification. Peter and John echoed it as well as Paul.

Jesus didn't even use the word Grace actually... how does one teach such a thing without using the word you're teaching?

Well, did Jesus teach that people had to earn their way to heaven? Then salvation would be a wage owed to man. If it's given to man by a good loving God is spite of what man has earned and deserves it's grace. Grace is simplified as receiving from God what we do not deserve and not receiving from God that which we do deserve.

Jesus illustrated this theological point to His disciples when sitting in the temple watching the Pharisee and the Publican. He told them the Publican left justified, not the Pharisee.

Would you mind showing me where Jesus said we do not deserve to be saved?

OR

Pauls little idea about everyone being condemned for that matter?

As far as I remember he said nothing about either...

but he did say this...

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Luke traveled with Paul on both his second and third missionary journeys.

There was a person named Luke, and mentioned in Philemon.
Apparently whenever the 'Timothy' letters were written, they needed a back-story, so pulled that name out to insert into their own "Paul" story.
The name, Luke, is not even in Acts, but they needed someone to attribute the book to so, pulled it out of Colossians* since that was another book that picked up on the 'Luke' name and built him up as being a physician.

*a book not on the list of generally accepted 'authentic' writings of Paul.

reply to post by Akragon

Very good questions. Paul heavily promoted the exoteric aspects of Christianity including the doctrines of salvation and ascension. Both these doctrines were reworked by him into a direct means of countering the esoteric aspects of what Jesus was communicating and what the early Christian Gnostics apparently understood and practiced. Paul was interested in making Christianity into an institution, not preserving its mystical side.

So rather than the ascension representing one's spiritual rebirth in the Divine Spirit Light Above, this esoteric mystical practice of ascension and realization was replaced by associating such ascension with Jesus' physical body, and became solely about him. This is one of the means that the early exoteric leaders of the Church could gain the political impetus they wanted. No religion whose core is mystical or esoteric would likely be successful in being accepted by the masses nor by those wanting to control the masses. Ecstatic mystics don't tend to be as functional as the authorities would like and it takes too much discipline for most people to want!

Furthermore, regarding the doctrine of salvation that because of Jesus' appearance everyone who has faith in him would be saved, was also great for the masses. They did not have to take any great responsibility for a truly spiritual life - they simply had to believe or have faith in these exoteric doctrines being associated with Jesus, and they were already saved!

So what would be more attractive to the masses and the ruling classes - esoteric or exoteric? A no-brainer to be sure.

Until these two notions of salvation and the ascension become founded in their esoteric roots again, Christianity will continue to decline, I would think. Getting back to Jesus' teachings on real spiritual life through preparing the body-mind through turning all of its functions to God in love, and loving one's neighbor as oneself, allows for the moral responsibility necessary for living, and also lays the foundation for what Jesus was teaching his truest followers in terms of deeply communing with the Divine Spirit Light Above and seeing that one is more than these physical body-minds - i.e., through spiritual ascension via Jesus comes true rebirth/salvation in the Divine.

And so yes, I do feel that a Christian could certainly discard Paul's take on these major aspects of Christianity - and return them to their esoteric origins. And if one practiced these matters of love and esotericism, one would be more in touch with Jesus' message and the Divine Spirit he Blessed his followers with.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Well, did Jesus teach that people had to earn their way to heaven?

In effect, since he said that you keep the law, then do things besides, as charity.
Then he told the story of those he called 'workers of iniquity' who called "Lord, Lord!", fully expecting to enter in, on the 'Last Day'.

Then salvation would be a wage owed to man. If it's given to man by a good loving God is spite of what man has earned and deserves it's grace. Grace is simplified as receiving from God what we do not deserve and not receiving from God that which we do deserve.

The Greek word often translated "free gift" in standard Bibles, is charisma, which means something God has that he can dispense as He sees fit. I think it got translated as "free gift" in the King James version because the translators were supporting "free grace" theology that they picked up during the Reformation from people like Luther.
If you read the context you see the thing, 'eternal life', the subject of that giving, is to those who bear fruit.

Jesus illustrated this theological point to His disciples when sitting in the temple watching the Pharisee and the Publican. He told them the Publican left justified, not the Pharisee.

The Pharisee in that illustration did not have a spirit of repentance.

reply to post by Akragon

Can you reject Paul and still be a "Christian"?

Were there "Christians" before Paul showed up?
If so then the answer to your question is... yes, one can reject Paul and still be a Christian.

Paul's success as an organizer was crucial, and his influence on the other, later New Testament authors (whether they agree or disagree with him) is undeniable. Paul provides the foundation for a Gentile's participation, as a Gentile, in any sort of following of the Jewish Messiah in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

On the other hand, Paul's theory is unremarkably Pharisaic, plus the personal and revolutionary assumption that "the end of days" began with Jesus' Resurrection. So what Paul contributed to the living theory could be recovered well enough even if there were no letters from Paul, just the discussions of a gradual acceptance of Gentile participation told about in Acts.

It is also obvious that living Christians do not generally share Paul's view about the end of days having already begun almost two millennia ago. So in some sense, you have your answer. Christians already do very well taking from Paul what they like, and leaving the rest. Add to that, different Christians visibly take different things from Paul than others.

It's fairly clear, then, that as important as his contribution was, a living Christian could reject Paul in some parts, because there are damned few living Christians who accept all of authentic Paul, and also only a few who rely exclusively on real Paul for any particular thing they do believe.

Off hand, I see nothing in the Apostles' or Nicene creeds that relies exclusively on Paul, and that's about all that the two billion living Christians share in common. BTW, if anybody does know of a creedal provision that is unique to Paul, I'd be delighted to be corrected on that.

None of the above is to be read as proposing that Paul was in any way less than the giant that he was. The questiion is specific, however, and even giants can be rejected in light of later developments, including later developments that wouldn't ever have happened without the giant launching the search for improvement.
-

reply to post by Akragon


What I do is just read the gospels, Mathew Mark Luke and John together until I have an idea of the kind of love that Jesus has and I do my best to follow his examples. Jesus spoke in parables all the time so people couldn't misquote his messages. If we ARE MEANT TO INTERPRET Jesus's own parables, why should we not open the whole Bible to interpretation?

reply to post by SpiritofEnoch

What I do is just read the gospels, Mathew Mark Luke and John together until I have an idea of the kind of love that Jesus has and I do my best to follow his examples.

Sounds good to me...

Jesus claimed to have come for the only for the lost tribes of israel did he not?
Besides that, the books you speak of are mostly dated long after the dudes were dead.....so who wrote them?
CONSTANTINE.......
The bible is a construct of the holy roman empire.......
The Coucil of Nicea is he point where fantasy meets reality and gets first dibs....
The teachings of Paul defy christs words....
The story of Jesus is repeated throughout history in other earlier forms.....Mithra for instance has similar charactaristics.......virgin birth etc etc
To me religion is simply a control mechanism invented by men.....
Think about this
Revelations was written 300 yrs after the man died.....sheesh!
Jesus and you are all "Sons of God"(and daughters:duh
The people are kept quiescent with these distractions.....

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

Yes because the faith is centered on Christ... not Paul, or it would be called Paulstianatity

Then Jesus wasted a lot of energy choosing disciples and spending the entire time of his ministry teaching them, then sending them out to spread the Gospel.

One of the Apostles were self apointed(after he saw a vision of Jesus). Jesus also warned of a Benjaminite Wolf(A fasle apostle from the tribe of Benjamin)

Before Paul had his vision he was known for killing Christians was he not? He also taught that Christ died on the cross and many of his teachings died there also...

The answer to the OPs question is rather obvious...

PS Paul is a Test...

Can we throw out the OT too? I am pretty sure that is a different meaner God, who had chosen people but Jesus loved everyone...

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Akragon

 

Dearest Akragon,

There are those who knew Jesus and never knew Paul. Stephen is a good example of this. Whatever he knew of Paul predated Paul's conversion and writings. So, what is it to know Jesus. It says that many will come to him calling his name and he will say he never knew them. Satan met Jesus; but, it did not save him. Our salvation comes from having the mind of Christ, a mind of love and forgiveness. That is the toughest part, actually learning love and forgiveness more than just concepts and words, they must be centered in our heart. Both hate and love for selfish reasons are idols that prevent us from truly knowing God. Peace and it is a good question.

Very well said!! Reading this has actually helped me today, because I am currently trying to pursue a more righteous and Christ like path. Thanks for posting this

reply to post by Akragon


Paul denied Christ, 3 times to be percise
Jesus is the light and the way... The truth

reply to post by tzdub


Peter denied Christ.

reply to post by Akragon


I don't consider myself a member of this particular religion, however I have gained much from its teachings. One of those teachings is to examine the nature of each prophesy, accepting what is good and righteous and abstaining from the evil.

Paul himself is not inherently evil (no man is) but some of his thoughts do not resonate with my intuition nor my reason.

Originally posted by Roguemom
reply to post by tzdub

 

Peter denied Christ.

Lol... right

Paul just lied about him...

Robbing Peter to pay Paul ?

Rejecting Paul is Paramount for anyone who claims to follow "Jesus".

It is sad to know that many feel the exact opposite, that they need a system of texts to tell them how to live, what to think...and even how to worship.

Worship is the ultimate fail of Christianity and all other religions.

When the Christian feels this inherently, they fall back on Paul's garbage, claiming Grace is needed to save them from their fearful GOD/MASTER, never realizing the Bible was not created to help them, but is a combination of a great many experiments of which they fall for.

The worst part of all of this is, thinking outside of the box has been kaiboshed by Paul's supposed magnificent "visions".