Early Christianity

[_Mary]

This is a question for Fortigurn, or anyone else that wants to chip in.

To what extent do you feel that Paul's experience and belief in Jesus and what he stood for, matched that of the eye witness apostles? (and actually, if you want to take it back further than that, one could wonder how much the 'eye witness apostles' beliefs matched those of Jesus...)


I ask this, because it's an issue that has always intrigued me.

I have also often wondered how much of the original Jesus has been retained within the four gospel accounts. There is evidence of redaction, change and addition according to later ideologies (the end of Mark for instance). There is evidence of dispute between Paul and the eye witness apostles.

Jesus to all intents and purposes was a Messianic Jew from a royal line (albeit he was from humble circumstances) with a very legitimate axe to grind against those who held priesthood authority in Jerusalem.

I appreciate that Paul did (and I also wonder how much we really know about Paul from the surviving biblical accounts, with the same arguments aimed at him) a great deed for the Jesus movement in bringing it to the gentiles, but I wonder how much of what we now have as christianity comes to us through Roman and Greek (and others such as Mithraic) influence that inevitably came when the Jesus movement was mixed in and made more pallitable to the Gentile world, rather than that small Messianic Jesus (and John) movement that began in Galilee.

What do you think Fortigurn?

Mary

[_Jason Bourne]

This is a question for Fortigurn, or anyone else that wants to chip in.

To what extent do you feel that Paul's experience and belief in Jesus and what he stood for, matched that of the eye witness apostles? (and actually, if you want to take it back further than that, one could wonder how much the 'eye witness apostles' beliefs matched those of Jesus...)


I ask this, because it's an issue that has always intrigued me.

I have also often wondered how much of the original Jesus has been retained within the four gospel accounts. There is evidence of redaction, change and addition according to later ideologies (the end of Mark for instance). There is evidence of dispute between Paul and the eye witness apostles.

Jesus to all intents and purposes was a Messianic Jew from a royal line (albeit he was from humble circumstances) with a very legitimate axe to grind against those who held priesthood authority in Jerusalem.

I appreciate that Paul did (and I also wonder how much we really know about Paul from the surviving biblical accounts, with the same arguments aimed at him) a great deed for the Jesus movement in bringing it to the gentiles, but I wonder how much of what we now have as Christianity comes to us through Roman and Greek (and others such as Mithraic) influence that inevitably came when the Jesus movement was mixed in and made more pallitable to the Gentile world, rather than that small Messianic Jesus (and John) movement that began in Galilee.

What do you think Fortigurn?

Mary

I am not Fortigun but this is great topic. My father read a book once and I wish I could recall the title. I need to ask him. But the premise of the book was the Paul actually severely distorted Jesus message and that he was essentially distorted it so badly that he changed it entirely and is responsible for the apostasy of Christianity. No the author was not Mormon.

Bart Ehrman also argues that Paul's gospel is far from Matthews. In Matthew we have a heavy emphasis on the Law and works but Paul wants nothing to so with works and is all about grace. Anyway I am not an expert on this but it is interesting.

[_Fortigurn]

This is a question for Fortigurn, or anyone else that wants to chip in.

To what extent do you feel that Paul's experience and belief in Jesus and what he stood for, matched that of the eye witness apostles? (and actually, if you want to take it back further than that, one could wonder how much the 'eye witness apostles' beliefs matched those of Jesus...)

Well enough to rely on.

I have also often wondered how much of the original Jesus has been retained within the four gospel accounts. There is evidence of redaction, change and addition according to later ideologies (the end of Mark for instance). There is evidence of dispute between Paul and the eye witness apostles.

I think you need to flesh this out a bit, so I can see which parts you're referring to specifically (the end of Mark is a whole new thread).

Jesus to all intents and purposes was a Messianic Jew from a royal line (albeit he was from humble circumstances) with a very legitimate axe to grind against those who held priesthood authority in Jerusalem.

Jesus belonged to the tribe of Judah, and was a descendant of David, but that could have been said of dozens of other Jews in Israel at the time. If he had wanted to make a challenge for the throne of Israel, he would have been much better off as a Hasmonean, since they were the last Jewish family to hold the throne (Herod the Great was a Hasmonean, and wanted to restore the throne, but was unable to do so due to the Roman occupation - he had to make do with a pretend kingship).

Jesus didn't have anything personal against the priesthood (they certainly represented no challenge to his claim to the royal throne), but did have a theological and moral objection to them. Historically the priests and the kings were always corrected by the prophets, and Christ was a prophet carrying out that same function.

I appreciate that Paul did (and I also wonder how much we really know about Paul from the surviving biblical accounts, with the same arguments aimed at him) a great deed for the Jesus movement in bringing it to the gentiles, but I wonder how much of what we now have as christianity comes to us through Roman and Greek (and others such as Mithraic) influence that inevitably came when the Jesus movement was mixed in and made more pallitable to the Gentile world, rather than that small Messianic Jesus (and John) movement that began in Galilee.

First century Christianity wasn't old enough or sufficiently Hellenized to be influenced by Mithraism or the rest of the Gentile world. We have to remember that it started as a Jewish sect, offering a unique salvation to Jew and Gentile, but didn't start to evangelize Gentiles en masse until several years after Jesus' death. Paul was a Jew, and you won't find any Mithraic, Greek, or Roman mythology in his teaching.

If you look at the earliest Christian creedal documents, you'll find a strong agreement with the apostolic speeches in the Acts, and a Christianity refreshingly free from Gentile influences. A core creedal statement is found in the personal creeds of the next few centuries.

[_Fortigurn]

I am not Fortigun but this is great topic. My father read a book once and I wish I could recall the title. I need to ask him. But the premise of the book was the Paul actually severely distorted Jesus message and that he was essentially distorted it so badly that he changed it entirely and is responsible for the apostasy of Christianity. No the author was not Mormon.

Yes, well people have been making up strange ideas about Paul ever since he started writing. Nothing new here.

Bart Ehrman also argues that Paul's gospel is far from Matthews. In Matthew we have a heavy emphasis on the Law and works but Paul wants nothing to so with works and is all about grace. Anyway I am not an expert on this but it is interesting.

That's a very onesided reading of Matthew and Paul. It certainly doesn't explain why Paul had to defend himself from accusations that he was a legalist. Paul copped flack from both sides, the legalists (Galatians), and the liberals (Corinthians, Ephesians). That shows you where he was - right in the middle.