Did Jesus have a world view?

[jackplato]

Jaysuitical; I’m sorry. It’s not clear to me what exactly you find to be absurd in my statement. Jesus regularly attended synagogue and questioned the elders’ interpretation of the torah. And are you sure that you know the mind of Mr. Chesterton? Perhaps you do. I personally do not claim to know the mind of Jesus. I only claim to seek the truth, not to know it.

 

[jackplato]

Usagi; We only have Paul’s word that he was told anything directly by God. It falls into the category of heresay. That is probably why Peter did not accept Paul’s credentials to overrule their teachings. Also, most theologians say that Luke (the physician) was a disciple of St. Paul. It stands to reason that a follower of Paul would speak in Paul’s defense. With that exception, I appreciate your comments and do not take issue with them. You are right in that it’s not “that easy to draw a bright line between Paul and Peter”. And yet, if I’m not mistaken, many issues, such as God incarnate, the virgin birth, the Trinity, and the Resurrection, all came from Paul and influenced the writers of the gospels.

 

[Usagi]

Usagi; We only have Paul’s word that he was told anything directly by God. It falls into the category of heresay. That is probably why Peter did not accept Paul’s credentials to overrule their teachings. Also, most theologians say that Luke (the physician) was a disciple of St. Paul. It stands to reason that a follower of Paul would speak in Paul’s defense. With that exception, I appreciate your comments and do not take issue with them. You are right in that it’s not “that easy to draw a bright line between Paul and Peter”. And yet, if I’m not mistaken, many issues, such as God incarnate, the virgin birth, the Trinity, and the Resurrection, all came from Paul and influenced the writers of the gospels.

Hmm. Yes, Paul was the earliest Christian writer whose work we have, so the seeds of those doctrines trace back to his writings. I don’t think they were original to him or that he just made them up, but I see where the argument can be made.

You seem to have a somewhat incoherent position on the trustworthiness of the Gospels. On the one hand, you seem to believe that we can derive from them an idea of what Jesus Himself actually taught. On the other hand, you dismiss elements that don’t fit your idea of Jesus as having been influenced by Psul or simply being mistaken. Given that the Gospels are our only real record of Jesus, if you believe that the evangelists made up or changed some things, how can you trust them to get Jesus’ teachings right? You don’t seem to believe in the inspiration of Scripture or the reliability of the Church’s Tradition.

Usagi

 

[jackplato]

You are very astute, Mr. Usagi. My position is not that coherent because I do not have a completed thesis. My intent is to develop a view of Christianity which is void of Paul’s influence. Imagine what Christianity would look like today if Paul had never arrived on the scene. What would have been decided at Nicaea if the church’s teachings were dependent on apostolic teachings alone, assuming the church would have survived without Paul’s efforts? I am looking for (name removed by moderator)ut from people such as yourself to bring that picture into focus. Yes, we must depend heavily on the gospels, but at the same time we must be aware of the many distortions that were brought about by it’s many iterations. I’m not sure where this pursuit will take me, but I strongly feel that the early church made a mistake when it invested so heavily in the views of Paul.

If we just look at Jesus’ teachings, we don’t hear Him discussing abstract ideas about the number of persons in one God, or the virginity of His mother. What we hear is a discussion of love for our neighbor. In the sermon on the mount, we hear about how to think about people, and life, and priorities. I feel the church has gotten too caught up in esoteric issues that have very little to do with how we should live our lives. Anyway, I hope that clarifies somewhat where I am coming from

 

[Usagi]

Anyway, I hope that clarifies somewhat where I am coming from

Yes, thank you.

I’m not sure how many people here will be interested in helping achieve your goal, but you’re not the first person I’ve heard of who (for some reason) wants to scrub Paul out of Christianity. I think you’re misguided, but … good luck.

Oh, I’m actually Mrs. Usagi.

 

[jackplato]

And it is amazing to me, Mrs. Usagi, why so many people are willing to accept the story of one man who claims to have had an epiphany from God, and then to give this man’s teachings equal or greater credibility than the teachings of Jesus Christ. Is there any reason to believe that Jesus had not already instructed his disciples about everything they needed to know to carry out His mission? It makes no sense at all.

 

[Usagi]

And it is amazing to me, Mrs. Usagi, why so many people are willing to accept the story of one man who claims to have had an epiphany from God, and then to give this man’s teachings equal or greater credibility than the teachings of Jesus Christ. Is there any reason to believe that Jesus had not already instructed his disciples about everything they needed to know to carry out His mission? It makes no sense at all.

Well, people today (and for most of Christian history after the first generation, especially after the New Testament canon was settled) accept Paul’s writings as authoritative because they were recognized and passed down as inspired Scripture and attested to in Christian Tradition. Later preachers and writers built on Paul’s theology rather than challenging it.

As for that first generation that actually lived alongside Paul and included the other Apostles and disciples who had known Jesus personally, we really only have the other New Testament writings to go by, and as you note they were all written after Paul came into the picture. However, it we can accept their testimony (since without that we literally have nothing either way), the original Apostles don’t seem to have had an issue with Paul’s teaching. There were indeed believers who questioned Paul’s apostolic credentials; we see him arguing against them in some passages. But nowhere do we see Paul accused of making up new doctrines, certainly not ones as momentous as Jesus’ divine Sonship or the Resurrection.

The Resurrection, in particular, seems to have been a Thing That Happened, or at the very least a Thing That People Experienced and Believed. Paul himself describes hundreds of still-living witnesses to the Risen Christ, as though his readers can literally just go ask people if he is telling the truth. That Jesus died, rose, and will come again is the very kernel of the Christian proclamation, repeated by all or nearly all the NT writers. Luke has Peter proclaim the Resurrection to the Jerusalem crowds on Pentecost, and later choose a new twelfth apostle from “those who are witnesses with us of his resurrection.”) And yes, Luke is Paul’s buddy, but without him, we know nothing of what anyone did before Paul came along. Luke ends Acts before Paul’s death and both Paul and Peter were supposed to have been executed under Nero, so it’s likely Peter was alive and could have disputed Luke’s account if he were just making everything up.

The precise nature of the Trinity wasn’t nailed down until centuries after Paul and the rest of them lived, but the NT does contain the seeds that led to that doctrine. Again, while Paul may have been the first to write of Father, Son, and Spirit, he was by no means alone. All the evangelists, the same people who record Jesus’ teachings about love of neighbor, also have him using Father/Son language to refer to God and Himself, who are distinct and yet united in a special way. Both John and Peter (or the people using their names, who are usually assumed to have been at least followers of theirs) write of the pre-existence and Incarnation of Jesus.

Does the Virgin Birth originate with Paul? I know he uses “born of a woman,” but I thought it was Matthew and Luke who were our sources on that (and therefore the ones sometimes accused of making it up).

As far as Paul expanding Jesus’ goal to cover the Gentiles and “scorning” the teachings of those who came before him, I’m not sure that’s the case. Again, Paul wrote first and the other evidence we have comes after him, so there’s no guarantee he didn’t influence it, but we also don’t see evidence that Paul was just making stuff up and going against the other Apostles. From Genesis to Malachi we have prophecies and promises that someday God will use his Chosen People to bring “the nations” into the fold as well. Matthew tells us that Jesus commissioned his followers to “Go and teach all nations” after his departure – a revision, not a contradiction, of his earlier instruction during his life that they should go only to “the house of Israel.” Luke has Peter bringing the uncircumcised into the Church before Paul’s conversion (and getting a clue that the dietary laws no longer bind, as well). What was settled after Paul came along wasn’t “Can Gentiles be Christians?” but “Do Gentiles have to become Jews in order to become Christians?” According to Luke, they didn’t just agree to disagree on that, forming a Church of Jewish Christians and a Church of Gentile Christians (which would have been disastrous), but met in the prototype of all church councils to devise and promulgate a single official ruling. Paul, Peter, and James all have speaking parts, and all ultimately agree that Gentiles do not have to become Jews first.

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

I assume by your mention of “scorning Peter and James and their teaching” you mean the incident in Galatians. I don’t think that’s what happened, though. Indeed, this incident seems to draw up the “sides” that would later come to agreement at the Jerusalem council just discussed. It’s not that Peter and James have one teaching and Paul has another. Peter starts out eating with the Gentile Christians, as befits a man who (per Acts) has already realized that both the Gentiles and their eating practices are acceptable before God in the post-messianic world. James, who is leading the Church in Jerusalem and therefore has mostly Jewish Christians in his flock, hears about this and fears scandal (kind of like the Traditionalist Catholic reaction to Pope Francis’ unusually inclusive foot-washing rite last Thursday). He sends some guys to persuade Peter to return to the traditional Jewish practice of eating apart from Gentiles. Paul hears about that and goes to Peter himself, arguing forcefully that Peter’s new behavior is the scandalous one since it promotes the idea of different “classes” of Christians. Given what we learn from that incident, it’s especially interesting that the council discussing the broader issue was held in James’ “diocese” and that James was the one who articulated the final ruling in favor of Paul’s position. James being the final speaker has been used as evidence against Peter having any kind of papal authority, but since it seems to have been James and his flock who were most concerned about Peter and Paul’s changes, it may well have been that everyone realized James would have to be the one to convince the rest of his faction that they had been wrong.

Usagi

 

[PJM]

=jackplato;10561809]During an interview for “This Week,” aired this morning, Archbishop of New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that “Jesus came to reconcile the world.” He further stated that “the world” then nailed Him to a cross.

My understanding of Jesus’ teachings is that His role was to reconcile the Jews. As the Messiah, He was to prepare the Jews for the coming “Kingdom of God” which would free them from Roman rule, just as Moses had freed them from Egyptian rule. I am not aware that Jesus ever told His apostles that they should go out and preach to the Gentiles, or that their mission was to start a new world religion that was to replace Judaism.

This issue, of course, is key to Catholic teachings. Can you refer me to the scripture that supports this world view by the Church? I am wondering if there is a canonical reference that supports this view. I am leery, however, of St. Paul’s teachings because his teachings did not seem to align well with the teachings of Jesus, or he addressed issues that were not addressed by Jesus.

Dear friend,

What bible are you using? And that IS NOT what the CC teaches:blush:

Mark 16:114-16 “At length he appeared to the eleven as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. And he said to them: **Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature” **

Matt. 28:16, 18-20 “And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”

And St. Paul was hand selected by Jesus to specifically Teach the Gentiles… Romans 11:13 “For I say to you, Gentiles: as long indeed as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I will honour my ministry”

And PLEASE share with us specifics of Pauls teachings “that seem not to allign with those of Christ”

 

[jackplato]

Usagi,
Thank you for your knowledgeable and thoughtful response. You make many good points and I will give them much consideration.

Some of Paul’s critics say that he adopted many of his ideas about the Christian God from Roman and Greek mythology, which he would have been familiar with. For example, some of the mythical Gods had children with human mothers. There were Gods who took human form (incarnation). There were Gods who were killed, who went down into Hades and were resurrected again. I believe it was Adonis who is resurrected every Spring around Easter time. Jesus is supposed to have been born in the Adonis cave (identified by the mother of Constantine?). There are several “Trinities” in Greek Mythology. Many striking similarities overall. Enough for a person to at least consider the possibility that Paul wanted his Christian God to be at least as good as the Roman Gods, if he is going to succeed in converting the Romans to Christianity. He certainly was more successful than the apostles in getting converts. Could it be that the disciples adopted Paul’s ideas in order to gain more converts? Don’t know; just something to consider.

I am not resolved and have an open mind. I will continue to seek the truth and truly appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Jack

 

[jackplato]

PJM; Thank you for the biblical references. They are helpful.

 

[PJM]

=jackplato;10574486]Usagi,
Thank you for your knowledgeable and thoughtful response. You make many good points and I will give them much consideration.

Some of Paul’s critics say that he adopted many of his ideas about the Christian God from Roman and Greek mythology, which he would have been familiar with. For example, some of the mythical Gods had children with human mothers. There were Gods who took human form (incarnation). There were Gods who were killed, who went down into Hades and were resurrected again. I believe it was Adonis who is resurrected every Spring around Easter time. Jesus is supposed to have been born in the Adonis cave (identified by the mother of Constantine?). There are several “Trinities” in Greek Mythology. Many striking similarities overall. Enough for a person to at least consider the possibility that Paul wanted his Christian God to be at least as good as the Roman Gods, if he is going to succeed in converting the Romans to Christianity. He certainly was more successful than the apostles in getting converts. Could it be that the disciples adopted Paul’s ideas in order to gain more converts? Don’t know; just something to consider.

I am not resolved and have an open mind. I will continue to seek the truth and truly appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Jack

Jack, my friend,

Your post is a combination of myths, lack of understanding and fabrications. IF there is anything in the bible to support any of these claims, please point it out specifically:shrug:

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[jackplato]

PJM; They are not my claims, but a reference to the claims of others. It is not a new concept. Many books have been written on the subject if you care to read up on it. Some have bibliographies, however, I doubt that many reference the bible. I don’t believe the bible has much to say about Roman or Greek mythology anyway.
Is it your opinion that I lack understanding of these authors’ works or that I fabricated their point of view.

 

[PJM]

=jackplato;10574995]PJM; They are not my claims, but a reference to the claims of others. It is not a new concept. Many books have been written on the subject if you care to read up on it. Some have bibliographies, however, I doubt that many reference the bible. I don’t believe the bible has much to say about Roman or Greek mythology anyway.
Is it your opinion that I lack understanding of these authors’ works or that I fabricated their point of view.

Like my grandpa used to say Jack;

Those who seek trouble are FAR more likely to find it.

 

[jackplato]

PJM; I believe in a slightly different version of that:

Those who seek truth are FAR more likely to find it.

 

[jackplato]

The search for truth requires a true understanding of all points of view, which cannot be acquired by listening only to the view we are aligned with.

And to truly understand another’s point of view, we should learn it from the source of the view, for it is not meaningful to learn about Chevrolets by talking only to a Ford dealer (although talking to both might be useful).

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Usagi,
Thank you for your knowledgeable and thoughtful response. You make many good points and I will give them much consideration.

Some of Paul’s critics say that he adopted many of his ideas about the Christian God from Roman and Greek mythology, which he would have been familiar with. For example, some of the mythical Gods had children with human mothers. There were Gods who took human form (incarnation). There were Gods who were killed, who went down into Hades and were resurrected again. I believe it was Adonis who is resurrected every Spring around Easter time. Jesus is supposed to have been born in the Adonis cave (identified by the mother of Constantine?). There are several “Trinities” in Greek Mythology. Many striking similarities overall. Enough for a person to at least consider the possibility that Paul wanted his Christian God to be at least as good as the Roman Gods, if he is going to succeed in converting the Romans to Christianity. He certainly was more successful than the apostles in getting converts. Could it be that the disciples adopted Paul’s ideas in order to gain more converts? Don’t know; just something to consider.

I am not resolved and have an open mind. I will continue to seek the truth and truly appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Jack

Was he, now? Does this exclude John? He had quite a following. In fact, in Revelations, the churches he writes to were likely ones he evangelized and appointed bishops in.

Also, how, exactly, is Paul the only one that corroberates the Trinity? John’s Gospel is used more than anything in proving Trinitarian theology. We see evidence of the Trinity throughout Scripture.

And none of the Greek religions claimed that the Word became flesh, dwelt among us, and came specifically to die for us. Greek gods died usually as a result of fighting or their own faults. If they rose again, it was for their own benefit. Christ died primarily for us (He came that we might have life). He was not ‘a god.’ He was, and is, and ever will be God Himself.

And, of all the glaringly incorrect issues so far, the issue of Paul, a former extremely zealous and devout Jew, taking up pagan sources in order to further his God (Who was the same, but he didn’t realize this), is by FAR the most ridiculous. Jews, especially Pharisees like Paul, were extremely opposed to any kind of pagan imagery in their faith. He even speaks of other gods as demons. Tell me, would a devout, holy apostle deceptively use demons to further Christ’s name?

I hope that some theories proposed about the ‘pagan’ relationship to Jesus really haven’t shaken your faith. If so, I’d recommend spiritual direction and increased prayer before seeking answers, as without faith literally anything can become someone’s ‘truth’. Seeking truth intentionally apart from God, or with the intention of refuting Him, will always lead to a rejection of both genuine Truth and God, as they are one.

 

[jackplato]

Peace,

Are you attacking me, or the critics I refer to? (“Some of Paul’s critics say that he adopted many of his ideas about the Christian God from Roman and Greek mythology”). It sounds very personal.

• So let me be more specific about my own views, then you can criticize me personally. First, I have much difficulty in accepting Paul’s claim to have received “the Gospel by the revelation of Jesus Christ” during an epiphany. The gospel writers only had Paul’s word on this matter to document.
• Next, Paul seldom referred to Jesus’ teachings, but instead promoted the ideas that Jesus was the “Son of God” and that He was resurrected. Jesus, on the other hand, is quoted in the gospels as having said, on over 50 occasions, that He was the “Son of Man”. The gospels are contradictory on this matter, and I don’t buy the rationalization that it is because He was both. If that were the case He would have said so, and not just shared this little secret with Paul alone.
• Paul’s letters are some of the earliest of Christian writings, and his teaching and writings influenced all future Christian writers, including Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.
• Paul was not only a Jew, but he was a Roman citizen, and he was a scholar. He also wrote in Greek. Therefore I assume he was familiar with both Roman and Greek mythology.
• Although some writers credit Paul with introducing “pagan sources”, there are many other writers who discredit this view. I doubt if that issue can be resolved.
• The Christianity we have today, includes the following doctrines:
  1. The father of Jesus was a God. The mother of Jesus was human.
  2. Jesus is one element of a Trinity of Gods.
  3. Jesus died, descended into hell, and rose again from the dead.
     These ideas were familiar to the Romans of the first century, for there were Roman (and Greek) Gods who had the same attributes.
• Finally, I suspect that if Paul had not happened upon the scene, that the Christian religion would not have become a world religion, but would instead have become a sect of Judaism. However, this is merely a guess on my part, and not of statement of belief. Which brings me back to my original question: “Did Jesus have a world view?”

 

[PJM]

=jackplato

Are you attacking me, or the critics I refer to? (“Some of Paul’s critics say that he adopted many of his ideas about the Christian God from Roman and Greek mythology”).

First, I have much difficulty in accepting Paul’s claim to have received “the Gospel by the revelation of Jesus Christ” during an epiphany. The gospel writers only had Paul’s word on this matter to document.

Jack this is the least informed, most blantant out of context position I [having of couse led a sheltered life] have heard expressed on CAF.The Bible in total id true or none of its true. Because of the fulfilled prophisies we Do know its TRUE.

Acts 16:15-16 "But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”

Jack ACTS is authored by St. Luke who was often a companion to Paul. Further NO other apostle: Suffered more or Accomplished More for Christ than did Paul

Acts 20: 7-10 "7] On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. And a young man named Eu’tychus was sitting in the window. He sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer; and being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. But Paul went down and bent over him, and embracing him said, “Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.”

Peter is the only other Apostles recored to have raised someone from the dead.

John 10:30 " and the Father are one"

Because it was and certainly is essential to understand that Jesus ALONE possessed TWO perfect and complete natures: as a man like us in every way but sin; and ALWAYS ALSO at the same time as God the son. Jesus References FROM his human nature “the Father some 92 times in the NT”

John 3:14-17 "But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he obeyed him. And Jesus [Son of God] being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove,[Holy SPIRIT] and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. [God the Father] [the Trinity]

Mt. 28:18-20 " And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"

So Jesus indispuitably is BOTH true God and true man. It is Chirst the man who died physically for us on the Cross and Christ as God who through this very act is the Worlds Redeemer.

Next, Paul seldom referred to Jesus’ teachings, but instead promoted the ideas that Jesus was the “Son of God” and that He was resurrected. Jesus, on the other hand, is quoted in the gospels as having said, on over 50 occasions, that He was the “Son of Man”. The gospels are contradictory on this matter, and I don’t buy the rationalization that it is because He was both."

REALLY: have you ever read Lk. 1: 26-35? " And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’ s name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Paul’s letters are some of the earliest of Christian writings, and his teaching and writings influenced all future Christian writers, including Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John

Wrong again Jack:

The First Gospel was authored by Matthew. The Synopics * reference each other; NOY Paul. And Johns does not either.

Paul was not only a Jew, but he was a Roman citizen, and he was a scholar. He also wrote in Greek. Therefore I assume he was familiar with both Roman and Greek mythology.

• Although some writers credit Paul with introducing “pagan sources”, there are many other writers who discredit this view. I doubt if that issue can be resolved.

• The Christianity we have today, includes the following doctrines:
  1. The father of Jesus was a God. The mother of Jesus was human.
  2. Jesus is one element of a Trinity of Gods.
  3. Jesus died, descended into hell, and rose again from the dead.
     These ideas were familiar to the Romans of the first century, for there were Roman (and Greek) Gods who had the same attributes.

So Jack, now we get it:blush: It’s not simply not understading; its a TOTAL Lack of God’s * Faith and God’s semingly denied grace at work in you.

I DO THANK you for your opinion. And I WILL pray for you too.

God Bless,
Pat/PJM**

 

[jackplato]

Pat, I am going to be brief.
First, you need to ask for God’s help in making you more tolerant of those who disagree with you.

(“the fulfilled prophisies we Do know its TRUE“)
No, “we” do not know. You may think you know, but the Jews don’t agree, and neither do I. And don’t forget, they are Jewish prophesies.

(“The First Gospel was authored by Matthew”)
And all this time I thought the first (written) gospel was authored by Mark.

Anyway, I don’t believe I stated anywhere that my views were supported by biblical verse, so I’m not going to comment on the rest of your reply. Do you have any opinions of your own Pat, or do you just quote biblical verses? Living in a black and white world might make life simple, but I don’t think I would like it. It’s a matter of choice, I guess. There are those who question, and those who never do.