Did St. Paul change the Gospel Message?

MrLucas · Fierce Puppy Joined: 05 Jul 2008 Posts: 244

I read a book a couple of years ago that said this was the case according to their thinking.

Pauls letters in the NT - some are quite techinical regarding the workings of the cross and how they are meant to be applied to christian thinking and living.

Did the concept of Jesus as sin bearer come from Paul?

Was the Damascus experience Paul's germ of the idea of this new religion? And did Paul actually believe it himself?

Paul himself said he was more zealous than others as a non christian and certainly seems more zealous than others as a christian. What was Paul really about. Did his zeal override his wisdom?

Was Jesus really an enlightened teacher who called himself God because he had God-conciousness. And did a confused early church and St Paul turn him into The Son of God the Sin Bearer?

Zathrus

This question keeps coming up from time to time. I recall a couple of threads, started by a skeptic, charging Paul with being an outright heretic and false teacher.

I don't think Paul invented anything. He stated that he preached nothing but those things that the law and prophets said should come. I think he of all the apostles was qualified to say this because he'd had much formal education in what the prophets and the law said. Now obviously just having that education did not enlighten him, because so many of his fellow Jews who read the law and prophets were still blinded to Who they really revealed. But with his education and the revelation of the Holy Spirit, Paul was in a unique place.

Yehushuan · Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:55 am Post subject:

The answer depends upon how deeply one wishes to dig. If we accept the modern Christian gospel as saying “Jesus died to pay God to forgive you,” then yes Paul did indeed change the Gospel, for if we isolate our inquiry “What is the Gospel of Jesus?” to only the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, we clearly find that Jesus’ Gospel teaches we do not need to offer a burnt sacrifice to God to pay for our forgiveness (as was practiced by the Jews), but that forgiveness is granted by a loving Father merely by the asking; with the caveat, of course, that what one FREELY receives by asking (i.e. forgiveness) should be freely given to others when asked. You are to forgive others if you expect God to forgive you. If Jesus had to pay God for our forgiveness, then God’s forgiveness is Not free, but rather requires payment.

In Acts 2, Peter taught that the crucifixion was not as important as the resurrection:

Act 2:32 KJV This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.Peter taught that the resurrection was a testimony to the Jew that the interpretation of Judaism as taught by Jesus was right, and that Jesus was made heir to the throne of David; “that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”. And yes, I quite freely admit that Peter, at that time, taught that we are saved by water baptism, and NOT by believing that Jesus was our sacrificial burnt offering dying in our stead.

Unfortunately, it does not help that the New Testament texts use three different definitions for the word “sin” (one verb and two nouns). Nor does it help that Christians confuse forgiveness for acts of sin with the remission of Sin. Is one freed from Sin itself, or is one merely freed from the consequences or condemnation that arises from having committed a sin? Christians get vague on this point. You see most believers put the Bible in a blender and if they read the word “flesh” here think it means the same things as “flesh” over there. Same thing with “sin” and “forgivness”.

It also did not help that James the half-brother of Jesus opposed Peter and wrested control of the church at Jerusalem by his claim of blood-right. James was continually trying to turn the church back to its Jewish roots, even to the extent of plotting for Paul to be arrested.

So did Paul preach a different gospel? I don’t think so. While the primary focus of the teachings of Jesus deal with forgiveness for sins, the primary focus of the teachings of Paul deal with Remission or eradication of Sin itself. Paul had started out killing people, and he never once asked for forgiveness, yet God saves him. So what gives? Before the crucifixion one could only find forgiveness. After the resurrection one can be made sinless.

Many people find Bible doctrines, but not many people find God.

Yehu
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago.

MrLucas · Fierce Puppy Joined: 05 Jul 2008 Posts: 244

I think you guys know stuff i don't so its hard for me to add a whole lot more to the discussion. However, it seems to me that because the Gospels were written in Pauls times and decades after Jesus walked the Earth, it's highly likely, if not inevitable that the Gospels would have been written in light of what the church believed at the time, not when Jesus walked the Earth.

It would be interesting to know what extent poetic liscence would have been acceptable in those days compared with our culture today. Today we expect accuracy and writers to be scientific. But in those days? Maybe soap and science were mixed together to entertain and please the people. Today we would consider this deceptive. But maybe in those days it was just considered creative.

It seems very likely to me that the truth would have been embellished to stregthen their spin and 'control' the people (in the nicest possible way of course).

Previous posters - you seem to take what is written in the Gospels as 'gospel'. Do you consider that some of what is written in the Gospels might not have actually occured?

Carico · German Shepherd Joined: 13 Sep 2005 Posts: 327

doctrellor

Yehushuan · Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: .