Path: christian
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
From: mkrey@ingres.com (MIKE KREY)
Subject: A different view from the same window....
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

Just a thought, for open minds ....

While I believe in the majority fo the historical elements of the bible, 
and also believe that Jesus was a great prophet and teacher, (I consider 
myself Non-denominational), I have a bit of difficulty in accepting the 
Pauline theory.  It seems that in certain areas he has hijacked the 
teachings of Jesus.  While Jesus always stated that he had NO intention 
of changing or diluting the LAW, it seems Paul has taken great liberty 
in doing so.  In Matthew we see that Jesus came to enforce the Law.
While Paul, who was at increasing odds with the 'New Church' leaders,
seemed to bend the law in order to increase his following.  It was Paul 
who elevated Jesus to God-like status.  James, who was possibly the 
blood brother of Christ, was Zealot-like in his attempts to uphold the 
law.  It seems odd to me that Paul, who's initial mission was to destroy 
the 'New Church' as headed by James (who we surprising hear very little 
of in Paul's letters), did a complete 190 and introduced conflicting 
doctrine to the leadership of James, who had much more of a personal 
relationship with Jesus. Why is James down-played in Pauls letters?
Paul has responsibility for creating the 'newer church'.  But was he 
right?  Why was Jesus so insistant on upholding the Law?  If we are to 
go by the original concept of the 'new church' as was headed by James, 
we are looking at a concept of radical judism, where a revival of vigor 
for the Law was the order of the day, as preached by Jesus.  Where did 
Paul obtain his concepts from?  Jesus ordered followers to pray directly 
to God.  Paul introduced Jesus as the intermediary.  ACTS emphasised 
Paul's (then Saul) hostility to the church.  When 'converted' Paul was 
pretty much exiled to distant lands after his three year probation.  
Was this due to his conflict with the New Church??  What about the 
'Community Rules' which were found as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, they 
also emphasised the necessity of the Law.  Throughout this material, 
there seems to be a conflict between the Community (The New Church??)
and someone who had presented 'differing' doctrine. (Paul??)

I know the urge to flame is there.  But I did warn to have an open mind 
(which we were given to think with).  I'm not saying christianity has it 
wrong, I'm saying that if looked upon in a different way, our differing 
religions in this world may not be a different as we think. Or, should 
not be as different as they are??  ANy thoughts, welcome.

Cheers
Mike 

************************************************************************
Mike Krey
mkrey@ingres.com
				
***********************************************************************

[I admit that I also have a feeling that Jesus and Paul come at things
from a somewhat different viewpoint, but I don't think it's as
different as you imply.  Both agree that the Law is still valid.  I'm
away from a copy of the Bible, but even in Romans, Paul says the Law
is holy.  The question isn't abolition of the Law, but what we expect
from it.  Paul's primary concern was with a problem Jesus didn't have
to deal with -- people who wanted to force non-Jews to accept the Law.
For himself, Paul obeyed the Law, according to one of his letters.  He
was primarily defending Gentile Christians from having to accept it.
Paul's focus on Gentile Christians gives his letters a very different
context from Jesus, who said he was primarily sent to Jews.  While
Paul agreed that the Law is holy, it isn't binding for his Gentile
readers, and for no one (Jewish or Gentile) did it bring
justification.  

Now let's look at Jesus.  Yes, not a jot or tittle of the Law would
pass away (something Paul would agree with, by the way), but he was
very free in dealing with it.  He seemed more interested in the spirit
of the Law than the letter.  In some cases (calling our brother a
fool), he went beyond the letter.  In others ("harvesting" on the
Sabbath) he didn't go as far.  I don't think the Law is the means for
salvation for Jesus any more than it is for Paul.  But it's more
important for him, because he's dealing with Jews.  He didn't suggest
that Jews should abandon it (nor did Paul), but the whole focus of his
ministry seems to be on love and obedience to God, contrasted with
righteousness through legal purity.  In my view he talked about not a
jot passing away precisely because the whole rest of his sermon was
going to give a different impression, and he wanted to make sure
people didn't misunderstand him.

Now as for elevating Jesus to God-like status.  This is hardly Paul's
invention.  Paul himself normally avoids calling Jesus God.  He uses
phrases like "our God and Father of the Lord Jesus", which appear to
distinguish them.  The places where he most clearly identifies them
are places like Col. 1, where scholars think he's quoting hymns or
other formulations.  Paul is certainly a strong proponent of Jesus as
mediator, but I see nothing to suggest that he invented this idea, nor
that he was the only proponent.  In fact that strongest identification
of Jesus with God is in John, which is quite a different traditional
than Paul.  It's hard for me to believe that John simply got it from
Paul.  Similar ideas (Jesus as something more than just a man) can be
found in Peter, and in some places in the Synoptics.  The way they
talk about it may be different, but it's present in every identifiable
tradition in the NT.

In my view, Paul's unique contribution is not turning Jesus into a
God, but his treatment of the Law, and that's unique because of his
specific role in helping adapt Christianity for Gentiles.  Even there,
he's not in opposition to the disciples.  Acts 15 shows them as
effectively endorsing his approach, though from a somewhat different
perspective.  They put the issue in the context of traditional Jewish
ideas that Gentiles are not expected to obey the Law, but just the
covenant with Noah.  Jesus seems to have accepted this implicitly in
his dealing with the Centurion who was a friend of the Jews.  The
Centurion is precisely the sort of "righteous Gentile" approved by
Judaism -- a friend of the Jews but not himself under the Law.  Jesus
accepted the Jewish elders' endorsement of him, and showed no
indications that he wanted the centurion to become Jewish.  Paul
comes to similar conclusions about Gentiles, though his rationale
is probably somewhat more radical.

--clh]