@Paine

Are you going to tell me that you were wrong about Paul not being an academic and about me needing to read the texts more closely, or just keep writing whatever pops into your head at the moment … when you’re not flattering your “friends”, that is?

True, the idea was not a new one.

But Paul conceived of the process as happening outside of what was happening in Judaism. The need to believe in order for the change to happen becomes integral to the vision. I don't know if there is a version of that kind of agency in 1st Century Judaism.

But it is that sense of a vanguard that Augustine amplifies in the City of God. The order of heaven has not been established yet, but the agent of change is here.

I take schopenhauer1's point that Paul must have been educated for us to have any trace of his presence.
The point I tried to make that Paul was involved in resisting Christians and then became a voice for them is right there in the text of the New Testament.
Make of that what you will.

@Paine

Yeah, he’s your “friend”.

Paul was a Pharisee, a learned Jew who was a Roman citizen, not a “cop”.

Paul is literally called the Hellenistic/Jewish Apostle.

There is literally a Pauline Christianity, and a religious order the Paulist Father, and I met some of them when I was a Franciscan Friar.

I’ve known who Paul was and what Paul wrote for over 40 years.

But you listen to your “friend” who Googled Paul, and you keep telling me about the point you were trying to make when you insulted me and told me to go read again.

Make that of what you will.

I am not sure about this 'friend' business.
Paul did say himself that he persecuted Christians before he did not. I characterized that as being an enforcer of the law.
I regret that making that point insulted you.
I will try to avoid doing that.

@Paine

Okay

@Joe Mello

How do you reconcile Jesus' strict adherence to the letter of the Law with Paul's telling the Gentiles that this was not necessary? When in Matthew Jesus is reported to have said:

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

(Matthew 5:19)

He was not making any such distinction.

@Fooloso4

Jesus was telling the people before him that the Old Testament laws governing their behavior were not only still valid, but he was making them even stricter because he was internalizing them.

Jesus knew he was humanity’s spiritual Messiah, the fulfillment of the outward law through spiritual rebirth.

Jesus was not talking about them becoming circumcised, or some other religious observance law, but about the laws governing them to do good and be good.

When Paul said that the Spirit replaced the Law, he was talking about religious observances not doing good.

Paul did not contradict Jesus’ teaching, and it’s poor hermeneutics to suggest he did.

Paul did not contradict Jesus’ teaching, and it’s poor hermeneutics to suggest he did. — Joe Mello

It is one thing to give your opinion, quite another to declare other readings that attend more closely to the text and do not bring assumptions to the text in order to fit a particular outcome"poor hermeneutics".

If, as you claim, Jesus was internalizing the Law, then that internalization would include this:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

(Matthew 5:18)

The internalized Law cannot be other than an internalization of the smallest letter and least stroke of the Law. The internalization of the Law cannot be an internalization of only a part of the Law you separate out as "religious observance". Purity laws were not a matter of religious observance.

The problem of interpreting the Law was a divisive topic at that time. Jesus and Paul were born into and participated in these disputes.

Paul himself attests to his disagreement with Peter. Peter, who actually knew Jesus and could talk to him and ask him questions. To suggest that Peter's objection to Paul was a matter of "poor hermeneutics" is the height of arrogance.

Jesus was providing his interpretations of the Law, not telling people to reject it.
Paul's view was fully his own, supposedly directed by not the human Jesus but the "spiritual" version (of his own admission).

That's all there is to it. Everything else is apologetics for the Christian doctrine.. It MUST be traced back to Jesus himself. If Paul is JUST giving HIS interpretation, then things start collapsing. It is wise to also understand that the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's influence was already taking hold. It was written AFTER more urbane, Hellenistic Jews and gentiles had their broader influence on the original group.

It MUST be traced back to Jesus himself. — schopenhauer1

But:

It is wise to also understand that the Gospels were written AFTER Paul's influence was already taking hold. — schopenhauer1

Paul stands between us and whatever Jesus might have said. But not only Paul. We should be cautious in assuming that what human beings hear and understand and repeat is what was said and meant.

If Paul is JUST giving HIS interpretation, then things start collapsing. — schopenhauer1

It may be that if Paul had not given his interpretation Christianity might never have survived. It is Paul's promise of grace and easy salvation for all that many latched onto.

Disputes about the Law, which Saul zealously pursued in both speech and action, were all but rendered moot by Paul. The end was at hand and those who believed in Christ would be saved.

Disputes about the Law, which Saul zealously pursued in both speech and action, were all but rendered moot by Paul. The end was at hand and those who believed in Christ would be saved. — Fooloso4

It was a man searching for something.. Became "zealous" in one way, and then "zealous" in another.. I don't even know if he really became a Pharisee despite his own appellation as such.. He certainly seemed to be a lackey for the High Priest and found his role wonting in this manner. Perhaps being a shill for the High Priest gave little meaning and his "conversion" to Christianity was a natural result of his own search for meaning. He synthesized various elements he picked up and molded the sect into his own vision. This became proto-Orthodox Christianity and then just Orthodox Christianity under Constantine.

My own view is far more impious. I don't think his conversion was either a natural result of his own search for meaning or supernatural intervention. It was neither a rational and deliberate synthesis nor a miracle of divine origin. His rhetorical powers of argument clearly show, however, that he was not devoid of reason.

Im not really saying what he did one way or the other. Just that he seemed to jump to various sects and chose to create something himself based on the one he was opposed at the time.

Whichever side he chose he did seem convinced at the time that he was on the side of truth and that it was his unquestionable mission to promote it.

But I don't think he thought of himself as deliberately creating something, but rather, as with the prophets, testifying to what he believed was revealed to him. Which is not to deny he created something, but only that is not how he saw it.

@Fooloso4

I wasn’t giving you my opinion or making assumptions.

Read further on in the “texts” and you will see Jesus talking about not even looking at your neighbor’s wife with lust, and Paul talking about circumcision.

I haven’t looked up the texts, because I’ve known for 40 years what Jesus and Paul taught.

And I’m certainly not plagiarizing some modern “scholars” who do have simply opinions and assumptions.

I’m a former seminarian and Franciscan Friar. I read the New Testament a dozen times and was taught by scholastics, not skeptics.

Every book written about Jesus in today’s world is horrible hermeneutics, for only someone who actually attempted to do the things Jesus told us to do knows if Jesus is who he said he is.

Google searching is what opinionated assuming people do.

I never use Google for any of my posts, because if I don’t know something I don’t pretend that I do.

@schopenhauer1

You’re regurgitating what you heard from modern writers.

The Gospels were “finished” after some of Paul’s letters, for it took the Gospel writers decades to compile all the witness accounts they used. A journey in the ancient holy land took a long time, and people stayed at each other’s house for weeks or months.

And there is no proof whatsoever that the words and deeds of Jesus were influenced by Paul.

And the greatest thing that influenced Paul’s writing was that he had a special direct revelation of Jesus. From that moment on he wrote with the same authority Jesus spoke with.

For, as Jesus said: “We speak about what we have seen and heard.”

Paul certainly did, and that’s the most important point. But you won’t hear that from the modern “scholars” you’re plagiarising.

And there is no proof whatsoever that the words and deeds of Jesus were influenced by Paul. — Joe Mello

Paul was not an actual witness of Jesus. Nor was he a contemporary. He acknowledged that in the texts we have to read about it.

Paul certainly did, and that’s the most important point. But you won’t hear that from the modern “scholars” you’re plagiarising. — Joe Mello

What is the basis of this "plagiarizing" charge? Who is being copied here?

The Gospels were “finished” after some of Paul’s letters, for it took the Gospel writers decades to compile all the witness accounts they used. A journey in the ancient holy land took a long time, and people stayed at each other’s house for weeks or months. — Joe Mello

Ok, let's not pretend ancient writers followed modern standards for sourcing information.. The term "compiling..witness accounts", is a bit anachronistic as to how ancient "historical" writing was conducted. Besides which, the Gospels aren't a true "history" like say, Josephus Jewish War or Antiquities was. Rather, it is very much trying to prove a spiritual point using stories and sayings of Jesus. It wasn't with an eye for complete accuracy as to the actual events on the ground.

And there is no proof whatsoever that the words and deeds of Jesus were influenced by Paul. — Joe Mello

I can point to a bunch of themes in the Gospels that seem Pauline influenced, but that won't convince you. There are plenty of historians who recognize that Paul's influence was already present before the Gospels were written, and certainly prior to subsequent edits.

And the greatest thing that influenced Paul’s writing was that he had a special direct revelation of Jesus. From that moment on he wrote with the same authority Jesus spoke with. — Joe Mello

So, I'll just leave you with this post link, as the post will take care of my view on your whole perspective versus how modern scholarship approaches Jesus, Early Christianity, and Second Temple Judaism:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/658553

I wasn’t giving you my opinion or making assumptions. — Joe Mello

That is exactly what you are doing, but you are blinded by your unwarranted belief in the correctness of your opinions that you mistake them for the truth.

I haven’t looked up the texts ... — Joe Mello

That much is evident. If you did you would see that Paul is talking about more than circumcision. Dietary laws were a point of contention between Paul and Peter. This can be found in the texts you delude yourself in thinking you don't have to look at because you assume you know exactly what is there.

I’m a former seminarian and Franciscan Friar. — Joe Mello

By no means does this confer expertise on you. In fact, it is in your case a detriment. Without challenges from contrary scholarly opinion you only hear what what confirms what you already believe. Reading the same texts over and over again is a pointless exercise as long as you are convinced you will find only what already supports your beliefs and nothing else.

As long as there has been Christianity there has been contrary opinions. The Franciscans are no exception.

Every book written about Jesus in today’s world is horrible hermeneutics — Joe Mello

Of course everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. If they weren't they would not disagree with you. Either you were not paying attention or your degree in philosophy was nothing more than indoctrination. A trained philosopher may be convinced she is right, but does not dismiss other claims out of hand. Conspicuously absent from your posts is reasoned argument.

@Fooloso4

You can’t even understand that dietary laws and circumcision are both mere religious observances and not the internal “sins” Jesus preached against.

This basic lack of understanding nullified anything else you had to say.

And every Internet troll plagiarizing what he has read, and who is not really educated or experienced in the subject matter, cannot appreciate someone who is.

You had a chance to learn something, but you choose to listen to yourself and some other writers your skepticism and inexperience has an affinity to.

@schopenhauer1

There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the Gospels did anything more than interview witnesses and simply write down what Jesus said and did.

The very fact that each Gospel is written without any attempt to create a cohesive narrative shows us that each Gospel is written honestly and simply, not with the grand schemes that modern writers are writing with.

Skeptics simply do not have the experience and open mind to write about Jesus or Paul correctly.

Jesus was a carpenter who walked with fishermen … for a reason.

So no one could say that his power came from anywhere but God.

Paul literally said this about himself.

But that’s not stopping you and your fellow skeptics from making shit up to make yourselves into experts, when you’re just clueless and superficial thinkers.

You can’t even understand that dietary laws and circumcision are both mere religious observances and not the internal “sins” Jesus preached against. — Joe Mello

They are part of the Law. Plain and simple. There is no distinction between "mere religious observance" and other parts of the Law. What textual evidence do you have that Jesus makes such a distinction? When he says:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

(Matthew 5:17)

he does not mean fulfill the Law by abolishing it.

The internalization of the Law for Jesus, in distinction from Paul, was not an alternative to or nullification of observance of the written Law, it was a necessary part of its fulfillment.

And every Internet troll plagiarizing what he has read and who is not really educated or experienced in the subject matter cannot appreciate someone who is. — Joe Mello

Nonsense. I pointed to the text of Matthew, which you have refused to address. I have also been at this a long time. Long before the internet. I have been at this long enough to know that anyone who is "really educated" does not rely on sweeping condemnation of biblical scholarship, philosophy, and science based on nothing more than the fact that he possesses the truth.

@Fooloso4

Jesus never preached a single word about observing a religious observance. Not one. In fact, Jesus had numerous encounters with the "Teachers of the Law" where they accused him of not following the Law. It was even brought up at his trial that he didn't observe the law. And he called Pharisees hypocrites for following the Law but not doing the will of God.

And you ignore all this about Jesus to get to some opinionated nonsense about Jesus telling people they must obey all the Old Testament Laws, which are myriad and detailed.

You take one line from Jesus, which you don't even understand to begin with, and you claim it's proof that Jesus was preaching the adherence to every Mosaic Law.

Jesus was expanding on the Ten Commandments and the moral preaching of the Old Testament Prophets. Scholastic Theologians and Biblical Scholars all knew this basic truth. And it is basic, easy to understand, and the only interpretation given everything Jesus said and did.

It's today's skeptics who look for a sentence or two to put in a book they want to claim is scholarly and new thinking who don't know or understand the basics about Jesus.

You have nothing else but a single sentence or two that you misinterpret.

I find it odd that one who claims to have been a friar has such an abrasive character.

Jesus never preached a single word about observing a religious observance. Not one. — Joe Mello

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.(A) 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.(B) 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands(C) and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven

Jesus never preached a single word about observing a religious observance. Not one. — Joe Mello

If he did not preach a single word about "observing a religious observance" then you have undercut your own tenuous distinction between the Law and religious observance The Law includes religious observance. Jesus said nothing to the contrary.

And you ignore this to get to some opinionated nonsense about Jesus telling people they must obey all the Old Testament Laws, which are myriad and detailed. — Joe Mello

There was the Law, and the laws were myriad and varied. Hence:

not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law ...

You take one line from Jesus, which don't even understand to begin with, and you claim it's proof that Jesus was preaching ever Mosaic Law. — Joe Mello

The burden is on you to show that he was preaching something other than the Mosaic Law. As you said:

Jesus was telling the people before him that the Old Testament laws governing their behavior were not only still valid, but he was making them even stricter because he was internalizing them. — Joe Mello

Those laws governing their behavior included the practices of religious observance. Problems and disputes regarding interpretation of the Law existed long before Jesus started preaching. Soon after Moses brings the Law to the people the need for judges to interpret and administer God's will becomes apparent. See Exodus 18:13-26.

You have nothing else but a single sentence. — Joe Mello

Let's take a look at what Paul said:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law

(Romans 3:19)

Paul made a distinction between those who were under the Law and those who were not. He did not understand the Law to be limited to the Ten Commandments and "moral preachings" to the exclusion of religious observance. He did, however, think the gentiles were not under the Law.

He goes on to say:

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

(Romans 3:28-31)

Making the point even clearer:

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

(Romans 6:14)

Paul claims the power of grace over observance of the Law. Jesus made no such claim. It is not a question of which laws but of whether those who do not observe the Law will enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says no. Paul says yes.

@Fooloso4

You put a lot of work in to be right about something that you couldn’t be more wrong about.

Jesus explicitly said that a person must be born again in the spirit to see the kingdom of God.

Paul used the word “grace” to say the same thing.

Jesus never said that a person must follow the Law to see the kingdom of God. In fact, when a rich person asked him how to get into heaven, he said, “obey the Commandments” (like I told you was his focus and not religious observances), and then after the rich person said he already did, Jesus told him to go and sell everything and give it to the poor, and then come follow him. This is Jesus fulfilling the Law and the Prophets by giving human beings an internal spiritual life worth living.

Jesus even said that “The Kingdom of God is within you”.

You can keep Googling all day if you like, but you will only find Jesus building a foundation under Paul’s understanding of Christianity.

To suggest that Jesus and Paul saw the spirit of God differently because Paul understood “grace” is idiotic.

Jesus didn’t enlist a single teacher of the Law and said that the only teacher his followers had is “the Lord”.

And at the end of Jesus’ teaching he sent “the Paraclete”, the Holy Spirit who would instruct and lead his followers until the end of time.

(No Google was used to write this post.)

@emancipate

You have literally provided the Jesus quotes that show him taking the Laws of religious observances that the Pharisees thought were important and saying that we must go beyond these religious observances and obey God’s “commands”.

A commandment is not to do a religious observance but to do a good behavior.

I’m telling you guys basic stuff, not some deep hermeneutics.

Skeptic “scholars” today challenge every basic teaching because they have an agenda to prove that modern thinkers are the greatest thinkers.

They’re the opposite, as you guys keep proving in your regurgitations of them.

@Paine

The basis of my plagiarizing charge is that most posters on this forum Google their asses off before and during most of their posts, and then make statements of knowledge they read about from others.