Why Was Paul's Teaching More Acceptable?

[lew0049]

What's the historical evidence that those were written as historical records? Who wrote them? When? Why?

The first step to analyzing historical evidence is validating the source.

Although the writers of the gospels had a theological agenda, it would be innaccurate to conclude that there writings distorted the historical truth. During that time, people didn't write documents if there wasnt a reason to learn from them.


Personally, the medical evidence found in John 19:34 is extremely significant to me in showing the reliability of John and the gospels.


You can look at the museums, preserved artifacts, books, and eyewitness testimony of the Holocaust and see that Jewish scholars definitely had ideological motives and purposes for their recording, nevertheless, you will find that they reported the most faithfully yet objective compared w/ others who had more anti-sematic purposes.

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

For historical record we have the Book of Acts and the Epistles of John and Peter.

I am not so sure that the book of Acts gives an accurate account of the history of the original Jewish 'church' in Jerusalem. As it was most probably written by Luke, who was a Gentile disciple of Paul, it actually gives a very one sided (Paulist) story.

Also, the Epistles of Peter are generally agreed by scholars to be pseudepigraphical, and rather late in date.

Thus neither can be relied upon to give accurate and unbiased history.

Peace & Love

 

[James the Persian]

Errrrr..... not quite. The Christian faith is a radical change in not only a persons faith and outlook on the world, but with baptism and inclusion in the Church actually changes the person... we begin to transform our mind and body through the grace of God into the Holy Spirit... we actually begin our journey of becoming divine--- united with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It's a bit more than your "merely believe" idea.

Quite. It always makes me laugh when westerners anachronistically apply the Protestant idea of sola fide to the early Church. St. Paul didn't teach any such thing, nor did the Fathers and for 1500 years after Christ, nobody believed that idea, or its bedfellow sola scriptura. Just look to those churches that have genuine roots in the preaching of the Apostles (yes, all of them, not just Paul - for instance the faith was brought to Romania by St. Andrew who founded the church at Tomis, modern Constanta) and see which of them teaches this kind of insipid 'just believe and you're saved' idea. We might not agree on everything, but it is undoubtedly the fact that we all - whether Orthodox or Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian - we all reject sola fide. How could that be if it was the invention of St. Paul? After all, we've been separated from you for twice as long as Protestants have existed, from the OOs for 3 times as long and from the Assyrians for even longer.

James

 

[wizanda]

Maybe it is as Saul/Paul held Stephens clothes so he could get stoned to death....wasn't that nice of him...wonder if he collected his teeth as a souvenirs also...
You are all sick if you can follow someone who murdered the innocent and lied to do it...
Rev 2:13
(13) I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Act 22:20
(20) And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But Jesus appointed 12 Apostles to go out and teach, but how much do we hear of their success (or failure)? Did they have many followers, and start any churches? Why are we told next to nothing about any of them?

If you go by the account in Acts, the other apostles felt that they were called to preach only to the Jews, and that Paul came to them and asked if he could preach to the Gentiles. It would appear that the message that Jesus was the Messiah prophecied by Jewish beliefs was more widely accepted amongst non-Jews than the Jews themselves.

And the Syriac Church in India claims to have been founded by the Apostle Thomas. The Coptics claim to have been founded by the Apostle Mark.

 

[doppelganger]

Although the writers of the gospels had a theological agenda, it would be innaccurate to conclude that there writings distorted the historical truth. During that time, people didn't write documents if there wasnt a reason to learn from them.

That's not the question though. At the outset, what evidence is there as to who even wrote them? When? And most importantly, why?

Specifically I didn't say anything about "distorting" a record as I haven't seen any evidence on which to based a conclusion they were intended by their authors to be an history in the first place.

 

[Booko]

IThus neither can be relied upon to give accurate and unbiased history.

No ancient text can be relied upon to give us unbiased history. Unbiased history is an invention of modern historiography.

 

[doppelganger]

No ancient text can be relied upon to give us unbiased history. Unbiased history is an invention of modern historiography.

Quite right, Mother Hen. There's almost no way to verify most of the salient facts contained in the Bible. My best guess is that much of it (including the Gospel stories) fall within the realm of "metaphorical fiction" in an "historical" setting. So there are a few side details setting the stories in a time and place, but the pertinent characters, events and dialogue are most likely matters of human creativity - an amalgamation of wisdom and myths adapted from a variety of sources.

 

[Booko]

Quite right, Mother Hen. There's almost no way to verify most of the salient facts contained in the Bible. My best guess is that much of it (including the Gospel stories) fall within the realm of "metaphorical fiction" in an "historical" setting. So there are a few side details setting the stories in a time and place, but the pertinent characters, events and dialogue are most likely matters of human creativity - an amalgamation of wisdom and myths adapted from a variety of sources.

I tend to believe there is more historical value to them, but I recognize that it's a belief.

The reason I believe, say, the dialogue may be genuine oral tradition is that I've observed how it works in other religions that have started since then, and the Gospel stories follow a similar pattern, so... These later religions have more historical material available to check the original traditions. But I do not take Gospel accounts as a transcript of events in the modern sense.

The earlier Biblical texts, say the first few chapters of Genesis, now that I believe is as you say, more an amalgamation of wisdom and myths adapted from other sources. The similarites between creation and flood stories have been particularly remarked upon. This is particularly so looking at the 2 creation stories, which implies 2 different sources. There are other indications of this as well, but that's been done in other threads by people with a much greater background than I could ever claim to have.

What I am not particularly fond of, though, is the notion that the historical accuracy of a text can be judged solely by:

• If I agree with it, it must be accurate
• If it contradicts my preconceived notion, it must be the result of funny business on the part of "orthodoxy."

That "method" is something I regard as nothing less than a laughable approach to textual criticism.

 

[doppelganger]

I tend to believe there is more historical value to them, but I recognize that it's a belief.

The reason I believe, say, the dialogue may be genuine oral tradition is that I've observed how it works in other religions that have started since then, and the Gospel stories follow a similar pattern, so... These later religions have more historical material available to check the original traditions. But I do not take Gospel accounts as a transcript of events in the modern sense.

The apparent evolution of Jesus through the stories is an interesting model for thinking about this. There have been many attempts at an historical deconstruction of Christian mythology, but the trail pretty much dies once you reach the first century C.E. and all that's left is "textual evidence." It's a useful theological and comparative lit. device, but without knowing the authorship or the nature of the texts at issue, I don't think it has much value as historical method.

 

[joeboonda]

The beginning question of the thread said basicaly that Paul said only believe in Jesus and Jesus said to "take up the cross", etc. insinuating that salvation requires work on our behalf. But, Jesus also said whoever believes in Him has eternal life, as did Paul. They both taught about what it takes to grow and bear fruit, to be a good disciple, who brings many to Heaven and obtains great reward in Heaven. They both taught that salvation is FREE, but growth and bearing fruit is costly. Jesus said He would GIVE the living water to any who asked, Paul said to run the race, that it took discipline. This is the believer's race, not for salvation, but for obtaining the prize, the believer's reward, which not all would obtain. Some will have greater "treasure in Heaven" than others who will "suffer loss yet be saved..."

First, Paul made it clear NOT to follow PAUL, but to believe in JESUS:

I Corinthians 1
10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.


2nd, JESUS said anyone who believes in Him is saved:

John 3:15
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 6:35
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
John 6:40
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
John 7:38
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
John 11:25
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
John 12:44
Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
John 12:46
I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.


3rd, Paul taught believers to run the race with discipline:

I Cor. 9
24Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
25And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
26I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: 27But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

One who reads the whole Bible and studies with the Holy Spirit as guide can plainly see that salvation is free, Heaven, eternal life with the Lord, is free to all who believe, it is called the free gift. But the rewards each believer receives are NOT the same, for some will deny themselves and take up the cross and run the race and discipline their wills and bodies and serve the Lord more than others and will receive greater reward. Jesus preached the Kindgom of God is now among us and told the disciples to tarry until they were imbued with power from on high, the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost, they preached the Gospel, Christ crucified, buried, and risen again with power and boldness. Christ left but sent the Holy Spirit to empower believers to do God's work here and spread the Gospel of Christ as He commanded. This is the same Gospel, whether Jesus, Paul, Peter, or even lowly Joeboonda proclaims it, it is the "so great salvation" of Our Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed to you today.

 

[joeboonda]

That is your opinion sir, and good luck with that. I have studied and explored many religions and I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is Lord. That is what I believe, you are welcome to your own beliefs, but do not tell me I will never advance towards the "goal of Spirituality" unless I rid myself of my belief in the Lord Jesus Christ! Jesus said He that believes in me has eternal life. As far as traditions go, I don't mind traditions as long as they are in line with the Bible.

 

[Booko]

Joeboonda

I see from your profile that you are a Christian.

I am afraid that all those who follow any particular religion, whatever it might be, have a very limited perception, i.e. they only see their own indoctrinated ideology - a Jew will only see Moses, and the OT; a Muslim will only see Mohammad and the Quran; and a Christian, Jesus and the NT.

Until people rid themselves of their beliefs and traditions, and truly become (as Jesus said) like little children (open and ready to learn afresh), they will never advance towards the goal of Spirituality - the very Kingdom of God Within.

Where does Spirituality teach it's good for someone to belittle everyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do?

Isn't that why the Pharisees criticized Christ?

They didn't like Him because He didn't believe everything they were teaching either.

If these are the fruits of the alleged Kingdom of God Within, then there's reason to question whether it's actually God Within speaking.

And there's a world of difference between childlike and childish, which any parent can tell you.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But Jesus appointed 12 Apostles to go out and teach, but how much do we hear of their success (or failure)? Did they have many followers, and start any churches? Why are we told next to nothing about any of them?

It is only Paul's preaching that we are told of in the 'authorized' (canonical) Gentile version of the NT. A very one-sided and biased view of 'history'.

Peace & Love

I believe some of them were with him in his mission to conver the gentiles.

 

[joeboonda]

It is only Paul's preaching that we are told of in the 'authorized' (canonical) Gentile version of the NT. A very one-sided and biased view of 'history'.

Oh, REALLY??? LOL!!! Perhaps you should read the NT for yourself, it names more apostles than just Paul! Ever read the books of James, Peter, John, Luke's book of Acts as in the Acts of the Apostles?? Ever read the histories of the deaths of the disciples while proclaiming the Gospel?? Only John survived being boiled in oil, the rest were killed according to church history. The Bible is the Bible, ALL OF IT, period.

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

That is your opinion sir, and good luck with that. I have studied and explored many religions and I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is Lord. That is what I believe, you are welcome to your own beliefs, but do not tell me I will never advance towards the "goal of Spirituality" unless I rid myself of my belief in the Lord Jesus Christ!

Jesus said He that believes in me has eternal life.

He also said:
Mark 10:21 “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Mark 8:34 “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

 

[joeboonda]

He also said:
Mark 10:21 “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Mark 8:34 “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Yup:

Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
1 Corinthians 6:20
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 7:23
Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
1 Corinthians 15:58
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, alwaysabounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

Oh, REALLY??? LOL!!! Perhaps you should read the NT for yourself, it names more apostles than just Paul! Ever read the books of James, Peter, John, Luke's book of Acts as in the Acts of the Apostles?? Ever read the histories [myths? / legends?] of the deaths of the disciples while proclaiming the Gospel?? Only John survived being boiled in oil, the rest were killed according to church history [?]. The Bible is the Bible, ALL OF IT, period.

I quote from:
THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
J. D. Douglas, Revising Editor Merrill C. Tenney, General Editor, First Edition Steven Barabas, Associate Editor, First Edition Consulting Editors for the Revision: F. F. Bruce, Walter A. Elwell, Thomas E. McComiskey, J. A. Motyer, Peter Toon.
Zondervan Publishing House

PETER (petêr, Gr. Petros, rock). The most prominent of the twelve apostles in the Gospels and an outstanding leader in the early days of the Christian church. His original name was Simon, a common Greek name, or more properly Symeon (Acts 15:14), a popular Hebrew name.... With the opening of the door to the Gentiles and the spread of Christianity, Peter receded into the background and Paul became prominent as the apostle to the Gentiles. In the Acts narrative Peter is last mentioned in connection with the Jerusalem conference, where he championed the liberty of the Gentiles (15:6-11, 14). The remaining NT references to Peter are scanty. Galatians 2:11-21 records a visit to Syrian Antioch, where his inconsistent conduct evoked a public rebuke from Paul. From 1 Corinthians 9:5 it appears that Peter traveled widely, taking his wife with him, doubtless in Jewish evangelism (Gal 2:9).
Nothing further is heard of Peter until the writing of the two letters that bear his name, apparently written from Rome. [N.B. considered pseudepigraphical by many scholars] .... A final NT reference to the closing years of Peter’s life is found in John 21:18-19. John’s interpretation of Christ’s prediction makes it clear that the reference is to Peter’s violent death. Beyond this the NT is silent about him....
The embellished tradition that he was bishop of Rome for twenty-five years is contrary to all NT evidence. He apparently came to Rome shortly after Paul’s release from his first imprisonment there.

ANDREW (an'dru, Gr. Andreas, manly). The brother of Simon Peter and son of Jonas of Bethsaida on the Sea of Galilee (John 1:44).... After Acts 1:13 he is never mentioned again.

JAMES (Gr. Iakobos). The English form of Jacob. The name occurs thirty-eight times in the NT, mostly in the Synoptic Gospels. Apart from no. 1. below, the identities of those bearing this name have been much debated. They may have been as many as four in number, though some scholars argue for two or three....
1. James, the son of Zebedee.... We know nothing about James’s career after the Crucifixion until Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled when James was “put to death with the sword” by Herod Agrippa I about A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2). James thus became the first of the Twelve whose martyrdom was referred to in the NT.

JOHN, THE APOSTLE. The sources for the life of John are relatively meager. All that exists is what is found in the NT and what has been preserved by tradition. One can, therefore, give no more than a fragmentary account of his life....
In the rest of the NT there are only a few scattered references to John. After the ascension of Jesus he remained in Jerusalem with the other apostles, praying and waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit. In Acts he appears with Peter in two important scenes....
John’s name is once mentioned in Paul’s letters—in Galatians 2:9, where Paul says that on his second visit to Jerusalem after his conversion he met and consulted with James (undoubtedly the Lord’s brother), Peter, and John, who were pillars of the church and who gave him the right hand of fellowship. The only other mention of John in the NT is in Revelation 1:1, 4, 9, where the authorship of the book is ascribed to him.
Five books of the NT are attributed to him—the Fourth Gospel, three letters, and Revelation. The only one in which his name actually appears is the last.

PHILIP THE APOSTLE (Gr. Philippos, lover of horses). In the lists of the apostles (cf. Matt 10:3) the fifth in the list is called simply Philip, but the church has always called him “the apostle” to distinguish him from Philip the evangelist or Philip the deacon (Acts 6:8).... The last information regarding Philip in the NT is found in Acts 1:13 where we are told that he was among the number of disciples in the upper chamber before Pentecost. His days after this are shrouded in legend and mystery, but the best tradition says he did mission work in Asia Minor. The historian Eusebius says that he was a “great light of Asia,” and that he was buried at Hierapolis.

BARTHOLOMEW (b ar-thol'o-mu, Gr. from Aram., son of Tolmai or Talmai, Gr. Bartholomaios). One of the twelve apostles. He is mentioned in all four of the lists of the apostles in the NT (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13). There is no further reference to him in the NT, and the traditions concerning him are not trustworthy.

THOMAS (tom'as, Gr. Thomas, from Aram. te’oma, twin). One of the twelve apostles (Matt 10:3). He was called “Didymus” or “the Twin” (cf. John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2). The Gospel of John gives the most information about him.... He was with the six other disciples when Jesus appeared to them at the Sea of Galilee (21:1-8) and was with the rest of the apostles in the Upper Room at Jerusalem after the Ascension (Acts 1:13). According to tradition he afterward labored in Parthia, Persia, and India. A place near Madras is called St. Thomas’s Mount.

MATTHEW [Mat'thew]—GIFT OF JEHOVAH.... This son of Alphaeus was a Hebrew with two names, a common thing in Galilee at that time. Mark and Luke, when recording Matthew’s call to discipleship, speak of him as Levi, but Matthew himself uses the name he has been loved by throughout the Christian era.... [nothing is known of his later career].

JAMES, the son of Alphaeus. Another of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Nothing is known for certain about him. Since Levi or Matthew is also described as “the son of Alphaeus” (Mark 2:14), he and James may have been brothers.

THADDAEUS (tha-de'us, Gr. Thaddaios). One of the twelve apostles, mentioned only twice in Scripture—in two of the four lists of the apostles (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18). In Matthew 10:3, KJV has “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus,” NEB has “Lebbaeus,” and NASB, NIV, and RSV have “Thaddaeus.” The other two lists (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) insert Judas, son of (or brother of) James instead of this name. Nothing else is certainly known about him, but he may be mentioned in John 14:22. A spurious “Gospel of Thaddaeus” used to exist.

SIMON (si'mun, Gr. Simon, hearing). Another disciple of Jesus called the “Canaanite” in the KJV, a member of the party later called “the Zealots” (so NIV, Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18). The word does not mean “inhabitant of Cana.” Luke properly translates the Hebrew by Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). [nothing known].

JUDAS ISCARIOT [as every Christian knows]

 

[astarath]

you two are quabbling over the application of a term not about the point in question. Apostle is merely one who leads the direction of the church.
Was Paul an apostle...yes but of the Pauline Church
Now the twelve as chosen by Jesus were those meant to lead the church in many different ways in many different parts of the church!!!!

To often people forget that Paul's christianity was definitely the prevalent church in history but there were others.

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

Was Paul an apostle...yes but of the Pauline Church.

Do you mean that the so-called Pauline Church was different to the Church of Christ? How many true, yet different, Churches can there be?

Now the twelve as chosen by Jesus were those meant to lead the church in many different ways in many different parts of the church!!!!

Oh? Where do you get this belief from?

Too often people forget that Paul's christianity was definitely the prevalent church in history but there were others.

How many Gods do you believe there are? or how many different ways do you believe there are to God?