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

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Jesus did fulfill the law, he kept the commandments until his last day. Just because he fulfilled his part in the law doesn't mean he ended it. Just because you went to work today and fulfilled your duties doesn't mean you never have to work again. Know what I mean?

Paul says that after Jesus, the law is no longer needed. Him saying that is him putting his words over the law of the Torah.

Unless all has already been accomplished, the law is still in effect. Why would Paul say the law is ended when everything has not been accomplished yet? The world is still spinning isn't it?

edit on 28-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

So I suppose it's your conjecture that Jesus was a failure? He said the law wouldn't pass away until it was fulfilled, and that He came to fulfil it.

Was He a failure? And that isn't what Jesus said. He never said the law would remain in effect for the remainder of human existence, He said it would remain intact until it was fulfilled, and that He came to fulfill it. That's why He exclaimed "It is finished" when He died.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Luke was actually a famous author/historian named Plutarch.

I did "check it out" and looked up the things I found there.
I would rather think it was someone who was like a researcher for Plutarch, and writing a report of his findings, and writing it in a style after his master, or whatever, just like it says in the intros to those two books.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It's debated whether Peter even wrote that passage and most scholars agree that Peter didn't write it. None of the early church fathers ever mentioned 2 Peter either. Can you say "added in later"?

reply to post by jmdewey60

Without Paul, they would have been re-assimilated back into Judaism and would not have ever completely severed from it. So, no, in my opinion, there would not have been a clearly defined theology to spell out the superiority of Christianity, and the comparative worthlessness of Judaism.

What if Christianity...or rather, the religion that Jesus started was actually an extension of Judaism? Considering how Jesus demanded the old laws were to remain, it appears that way.

Jesus did not introduce a religion that was compatible with 21st century life.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


How is it finished if we are still here waiting on his return? If everything were accomplished we wouldn't be here right now and you wouldn't still be waiting on Jesus to come back. Since everything hasn't been accomplished, the law is still in effect. Jesus said so himself, or do you take Paul's word over Jesus'?

reply to post by bb23108

Such a revelation was their true salvation, and this ascension was not a physical ascension but a spiritual one - and not just associated with Jesus solely, as Paul and other exoteric institution-making types liked promoting to the masses.

I don't think Paul got into that hardly at all.
In 1 Thess., what it sounds like to me was a way of saying that if the people were worried about a Parusia that could somehow be 'missed', then forget about it because if there was some great apocalyptic even like The Lord appearing, then that would be the end of time, something impossible to somehow 'miss'.
So he wasn't giving lessons on looking for signs, or doing some sort of preparation. That comes up in 1 Thess., which I think is a blatant forgery, not written by Paul but someone writing describing a situation a lot further down the road in the church's development.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Jesus did fulfill the law, he kept the commandments until his last day. Just because he fulfilled his part in the law doesn't mean he ended it. Just because you went to work today and fulfilled your duties doesn't mean you never have to work again. Know what I mean?

Paul says that after Jesus, the law is no longer needed. Him saying that is him putting his words over the law of the Torah.

Unless all has already been accomplished, the law is still in effect. Why would Paul say the law is ended when everything has not been accomplished yet? The world is still spinning isn't it?

edit on 28-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

So I suppose it's your conjecture that Jesus was a failure? He said the law wouldn't pass away until it was fulfilled, and that He came to fulfil it.

Was He a failure? And that isn't what Jesus said. He never said the law would remain in effect for the remainder of human existence, He said it would remain intact until it was fulfilled, and that He came to fulfill it. That's why He exclaimed "It is finished" when He died.

edit on 28-3-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Did heaven and earth pass when Jesus said "It is finished?" If it is "finished" why do you believe that he is coming back to "finish" the job?

Jesus taught "The Way." The "Law" is the "Way." If the "Law" was finished, why did he teach "The Way"?

As long as heaven and earth persist, 2+2 will always be 4, and the "Law" will always apply.

So again I ask you, does anyone know exactly what the "Law" is? And don't tell me that all the law means to us today is love one another, because the teachings of Jesus encompass much more than that. And, if that was the whole of the "Law" what would we need Paul and his convoluted Pauline doctrine for?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

What if Christianity...or rather, the religion that Jesus started was actually an extension of Judaism? Considering how Jesus demanded the old laws were to remain, it appears that way.

Well, it was, in a way.
The 'prophecies' weren't all in the Old Testament, but were connected to some extent to more recent writings among the Jews.
"Judaism" isn't easily definable, since the form that it was in at the time of Jesus' earthy ministry was quickly obliterated afterwards and is extremely difficult to reconstruct.
The old 'Judaism' interacted with the philosophies current in the world and lent influence as much as it was influenced by the environment of the newly universalized culture of the Empire. What replaced it as Jewish officialdom was quite the opposite, being insular and inward looking and was being closed off to the scrutiny of the outside world.
So, yes and no, depending I think on how you define things. I think there was an expectation of something happening that was very much like what did happen, the expansion of the ideals worked out by Jewish philosophers to make use of the times to fill the earth with the good news of a god who loves humanity and wants the best from them and to accept others as kin.

Jesus did not introduce a religion that was compatible with 21st century life.

You may not think so, looking at certain sects of Christianity, or certain philosophies spread about through the various sects that are anti-social. (what I like to call 'the cult')

reply to post by jmdewey60


The same could be said for Paul. Jesus wasted a lot of time with a group of 12 disciples who would simply be replaced with some virtually unheard of murderer a few short years after his death.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Akragon

 

Dear Akragon,

It is a trick question (I love those). Can someone know Christ and never have read the bible? I would argue that they could. Now, if one has read the bible and rejects the letters of Paul then one must also reject Peter and the other apostles as they accepted him. Paul himself argued with the other apostles that gentiles did NOT need to be circumcised and in the end, they agreed.

Not everyone accepts that the Apostles verify that. Some speculate that James was a critic of Paul as evidenced in his epistle.

reply to post by Witness123

The same could be said for Paul. Jesus wasted a lot of time with a group of 12 disciples who would simply be replaced with some virtually unheard of . . .

I agree with the "unheard of" part, which is how Paul himself tells the story.
He lived in a small Jewish community in an overwhelmingly pagan city in Asia Minor.
He had not been to see any Christians in Jerusalem until after his conversion, and then to see only Peter.
So, right, he was almost completely unknown to any Christians in Judea until after his ministry was pretty well advanced in his own area.

reply to post by Witness123

Not everyone accepts that the Apostles verify that. Some speculate that James was a critic of Paul as evidenced in his epistle.

That's an outdated view that goes back to Luther.
Today that view is not upheld by biblical scholars who now have a better handle on the language and rhetoric of that time when those books were written.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Plutarch never mentions anything about Christianity in any of his writings though. Plutarch's Roman name was Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus. Lucius=Luke, they we're most definitely the same person in my opinion. They even mirror each others works on many different occasions.

There are way too many similarities for them not to be the same person. Plutarch wrote a book called "Parallel Lives", that's interesting because he lived a parallel life with Luke. Too many coincidences.

reply to post by jmdewey60
What I was getting at was that Paul's version of the ascension (based on a physically ascended Jesus) and Paul's own spiritual vision of Jesus' ascended form - was the basis on which he felt saved. And so Paul started proclaiming that such salvation (or re-union with the Divine) was eventually available to everyone via simply having faith or belief in Jesus' own physical death/blood sacrifice, resurrection, and ascension.

Thus Paul's version of Christianity allowed the believer to be "let off the hook" in terms of what Jesus actually taught relative to loving God fully and one's neighbor as oneself, as real preparation for directly entering into communion with God in this life through one's own responsible self-sacrifice in God.

In other words, in Paul's version, Jesus' sacrifice became a substitute for one's own self-sacrifice (real love) in the Divine.

This is a major distinction between what Jesus was teaching in terms of everyone's responsibility to commune with the Divine (through love and being born of the Spirit Light above) and Paul's own interpretation that union with the Divine will happen eventually through basically having faith in and believing in Jesus. Paul's approach universalized Christianity and so it won out over the other "contenders" at that time, and most especially the Gnostics.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It's debated whether Peter even wrote that passage and most scholars agree that Peter didn't write it. None of the early church fathers ever mentioned 2 Peter either. Can you say "added in later"?

edit on 28-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

Many doubt it's Petrine authorship because it's writing style is quite different than 1 Peter. But what they fail to take into consideration is the fact that 1 Peter was dictated to an amanuensis (Silvanus) and 2 Peter is from his own hand.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Without Paul, they would have been re-assimilated back into Judaism and would not have ever completely severed from it. So, no, in my opinion, there would not have been a clearly defined theology to spell out the superiority of Christianity, and the comparative worthlessness of Judaism.

What if Christianity...or rather, the religion that Jesus started was actually an extension of Judaism? Considering how Jesus demanded the old laws were to remain, it appears that way.

Jesus did not introduce a religion that was compatible with 21st century life.

edit on 28-3-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

What do you mean by "demanded all the old laws to remain"? Christ gave just two commands that He said encompassed all of the law (Torah) and the prophets. Those two laws would be to love God and love one's neighbor as oneself.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Scholars doubt the authorship of 1 Peter as well, some calling it pseudonymous.

Was it you that made an argument about Peter being illiterate in another thread? Acts clearly states that Peter was illiterate, so how did he write it with his own hand If he didn't know how to read or write?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

How is it finished if we are still here waiting on his return? If everything were accomplished we wouldn't be here right now and you wouldn't still be waiting on Jesus to come back. Since everything hasn't been accomplished, the law is still in effect. Jesus said so himself, or do you take Paul's word over Jesus'?

He never said till the world and humanity is finished, He said until the law be fulfilled. And that He came (to Earth) to fulfil (the law). So was He a failure? And man has always been justified by faith, and reckoned righteous by their faith. How do you think Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph etc were saved?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


If those two commandments encompass all the other commandments, and Jesus "demanded" those two commandments be kept, then by extension he was also talking about the other laws as well.

reply to post by windword


He said the law would remain in place "until fulfilled". He also said that He "came to fulfil".

Did He fail in fulfilling the law?