You said that the gospels are pauline. There are no other gospels. So where does one get Jesus's teaching? Not from the bible, because that is PAULINE. You said that.

I really don't understand what you don't understand. There is one bible. It is pauline. So where is the Jesu gospel? it is not available to us, because, as you said, only the pauline gospel is what we can get. — god must be atheist

Okay. Evidently you misunderstood what I wrote. The problem is that I did NOT say what you say I said.

Contrast what you say I said with what I actually wrote:

Only because the gospel preached by Jesus is not the foundation for Christianity. The gospel that Christianity is spreading is the Pauline gospel. — ThinkOfOne

The gospel preached by Jesus is contained in the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.

Paul subsequently all but ignored the underlying concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus and created a "gospel" of his own with very different underlying concepts. Paul even called it "my gospel". This is the Pauline gospel.

So, the gospel that Christianity is spreading is the Pauline gospel. Not the gospel preached by Jesus. Just as I wrote. NOT what you say I said.

I am a Christian and I have heard this point made before but I cannot help thinking that it sounds terribly like a dog-whistle excuse. "I know I said we should keep England for the English - but I never meant you should beat up foreigners!" This was, after all, the son of God. Even if he wasn't, he must have known how words like that from a leader get interpreted by followers. — Cuthbert

Christians have a long history of taking scripture out of context and deluding themselves into believing that it supports whatever self-serving belief they may have. When Matthew 10:34 is placed in the context of (34-39) the meaning is clear. It is made even more clear in the context of Luke 12:51-53. Even clearer within the context of the gospel preached by Jesus in its entirety.

A recurring theme throughout the four gospels is that Jesus speaks figuratively, many in the audience take it literally and fail to understand what Jesus is saying (as with Matthew 10:34). Of those who fail to understand Jesus had the following to say:

John 8
43Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot listen to My word. 44You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

In what way can such Christians reasonably be called "followers" of Jesus?

Christians have a long history of taking scripture out of context and deluding themselves into believing that it supports whatever self-serving belief they may have. — ThinkOfOne

Christians have a long history of taking scripture out of context and deluding themselves into believing that it supports using scripture to support whatever self-serving belief they may have.

Context is the apologist's "get out of jail free" card, but they also use speaking figuratively and other devices.

Christians have a long history of taking scripture out of context and deluding themselves into believing that it supports using scripture to support whatever self-serving belief they may have. — Art48

Would we need to demonstrate that they intended to misinterpret the Bible? It seems more likely that they are sincere and that the Bible is like a Rorschach test - people see whatever is in them in it. Which is why arguing about the meaning of a Bible verse (in the full realization of scripture's interpretative fecundity) is about as useful as an extra dick.

You're right. I was wrong. I stand corrected.

Glad we got that resolved.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong when I am. I wish more people would act on their similar sentiments when appropriate.

It is time folks stopped talking about religions as thought they are singular entities. They tend to start as counters to the establishment, because otherwise there would be nothing exciting or new; thus in some sense as at least, they start as moral revolutionaries. So boo to rich men and their camels, and hurrah to widows and their mites, for example. This is critical of the established religion of the temple and wants to overturn its moneychangers' tables because they are corrupt, and so on. But almost every religion either dies out or never really develops, or becomes established, because in an anarchy, no one can prevent you from forming a government.

No religion that really insists on peace can become established - Jainism, for example, but tolerance for doublethink is amazingly high, and people are quite capable of banging on about turning the other cheek whilst also banging away with their kalashnikov at anyone who disagrees.

It seems more likely that they are sincere and that the Bible is like a Rorschach test - people see whatever is in them in it — Tom Storm

Of course, that's possible in some cases, especially if the person is naive and simply takes their preachers word as to what the bible says. But sincere belief is rare in my experience compared to self-serving belief.

I don't think naivety or some kind of purity myth plays a big role in this. The problem is no one has any way of demonstrating precisely what the correct interpretation of Christianity is (or any other religion for that matter). And perhaps it is naive to think there is a correct version. Hence thousands of denominations and sects, with versions of Christian morality across the world varying so much they can hardly even be compared. Surely the best account for this is that this is what happens when humans try to manufacture truth out of an old book that says a bunch of contradictory things.

Surely the best account for this is that this is what happens when humans try to manufacture truth out of an old book that says a bunch of contradictory things. — Tom Storm

I'd say the best account is that people use the Bible to give themselves support for whatever they wish to believe. People will claim they are merely following the Bible when they, for example, kick their child out of their home for being gay or refusing to bake a wedding cake. But show them Matthew 5:33-36 where Jesus clearly says not to take oaths and it rolls off like water on a duck. They couldn't care less what the Bible says. They merely use it when convenient, when it serves their self-interest.

They merely use it when convenient, when it serves their self-interest. — Art48

I hear you and there is much merit to what you say here but I also think this is a limited notion of self-interest. It is impossible to read anything without a lens of self-interest or subjectivity. We are meaning making creatures who use language to manage our environment. A book of wisdom literature (whatever it is) is always going to be interpreted or shaped by one's worldview and perspectives, no matter how innocent or malicious. It's unavoidable. There is no direct access to a text.

Let's move the Bible to one side and take the Koran.

Believers can interpret the Koran in ways which seem barbaric or enlightened. I don't think it is fair to say that one group is self-interested, while the other is doing god's work. The fact is they are both doing god's work from their own self-interested positions. There is nothing in barbarism that precludes sincerity and good intentions.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong when I am. I wish more people would act on their similar sentiments when appropriate. — god must be atheist

You and me both. Unfortunately it seems to be quite rare nowadays. And getting rarer. Especially since the rise of Trump. Never admit that you're wrong. Just keep slinging the BS. Facts don't matter. Solid evidence doesn't matter. Sound reasoning doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that they believe that they are right.

A Christian site reports:

Russian Church Leader's Sacrilegious Claim: Says Soldiers Can Cleanse Their Sins by Dying in Ukraine (Sep 27, 2022)

A Christian site reports:

Russian Church Leader's Sacrilegious Claim: Says Soldiers Can Cleanse Their Sins by Dying in Ukraine (Sep 27, 2022) — jorndoe

It literally feels like they still live in Middle Age