The Apostle Paul had the most influence on early Christian thinking, yet he never met Jesus. Paul also does not refer to Jesus' teaching very often in his own writings.
The argument could be made that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants have been following "Pauline Christianity", and not "Jesus Christianity" for almost 2000 years. Then everyone would go to hell. Wouldn't that suck?
2007-03-09 03:11:18 · 34 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm not referring to a hallucination the guy may have had or made up while riding around on his horse.
Don't you find it odd that Simon Peter was supposedly Jesus' best friend but Paul despised him?
2007-03-09 03:18:56 · update #1
Galatians 2 has some of Paul's feuding with Peter.
2007-03-09 03:27:21 · update #2
You know, I've had this very question on my mind recently. Paul definitely takes Jesus' teachings and distorts them to a point of not even resembling what Jesus said. There is actually a book about the historical Jesus (that might even be the title) that delves into Peter and Paul. They actually (historically) disagreed about their approaches to the teachings of early Christianity so much so that they barely spoke to each other.
Interesting question..... a lot to think about.
2007-03-09 03:17:14 · answer #1 · answered by Yogini 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I'd like to know where you got your masters in theology. Seriously though, no it does not bother me that Paul never met Jesus while Jesus was yet in the flesh since Paul's doctrine does reflect the teachings of Jesus. Get real and get an understanding. Paul was not taught the Gospel by men but by the spirit of Jesus Christ. "Pauline Christianity", Jesus Christianity", is this a joke? As for the "amen corner" I wonder if they've ever studied the Bible with an unbiased heart. Peter makes reference to the writings of Paul and says to his readers that those who are in darkness stumble at the teachings of Paul and find them hard to understand. Are the teachings of Paul difficult for you?
2007-03-09 03:44:28 · answer #2 · answered by Jimbo 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It doesn't matter. They think the Bible is an autobiography.
Nope, none of the books were written by the people they are named for. Moses did not write Exodus.(he would have had to describe his own burial at the end)
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels that have their names on them. (those books are the stories that are told about them and Jesus, written to read as first person testimonials, a common literary device even in modern fictions)
So Paul's book, being the only one of all the books likely to be written by the person it is attributed to might be the only part of the bible that is valid. Notice that most of it is collections of letters to other church leaders.
Paul's writings are mostly about the working of his cult.
2007-03-09 03:25:42 · answer #3 · answered by U-98 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it bothers them, because Paul is said to have had a direct experience with Jesus on the Damascus Road. Paul himself referred to this experience as being the basis for his authority. Besides this, Paul points out his extensive Jewish education as a Pharisee as being a basis for his authority.
Part of the reason that Christians probably accept Paul, is that Paul makes a lot of sense to them. As an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul did not insist on Gentiles keeping the Torah - and in fact frowned on it. His theology makes sense out of the death and resurrection of Jesus. No, he does not refer much at all to Jesus' teachings, or his life. But he makes sense out of the death, which Jesus himself did not talk much about.
Christianity is less a religion about Jesus' life and more a religion about Jesus' death and resurrection, which is what Paul focuses on, and so he is very important to the theology.
I don't think this means everyone's going to hell! But then again, I don't believe in hell.
2007-03-09 03:23:16 · answer #4 · answered by Heron By The Sea 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
in case you've been a cop investigating an coincidence that had different witnesses, how could you get to the reality? You interview the witnesses, you are able to discover the position the memories matched up. Say you had 4 witnesses who had aspects of the tale yet by technique of and massive agreed to really some the data. Then different witnesses that had memories with an identical characters yet none of something corresponded to at least one yet another, or the the first 4. in case you had to flow before a decide and say that is what i imagine got here about, what could you do? you likely could take the 4 memories and omit the others as having no substantiation. there is letters and different memories that are submitted as critiques with reference to the case yet you are able to favor to ascertain them contained in the ordinary of the first 4 memories to decide even if to admit them. because no man or woman became round with a video recorder following Jesus, this became the mind-set used to discover one doctrine which could be agreed on, as precise as accessible. human beings, even right this moment, attempt to characteristic their own ideas to the tale, again then even as there have been no residing witnesses it became worse, something had to be accomplished, it may no longer be suitable, besides the undeniable fact that it truly is smart lower than the circumstances.
2016-12-05 11:18:51 · answer #5 · answered by binford 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most Christians don't realize how much of their cherished tenets come from Paul rather than Jesus.
Like the restrictions on sex. Paul and co believed that the second coming would happen within their lifetimes, so sex was just a useless distraction.
Jesus spent his time with the outcasts. If he was on Y!A, he'd probably be chatting amicably with the folks on LGBT. Paul was a hateful, spiteful man. His followers claim that he left that behind, but from their actions they seem to have learned it well from him.
2007-03-09 03:21:09 · answer #6 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Saul did meet Jesus, on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:4-6)
He converted him and charged him with spreading the message to the Gentiles. He even changed his NAME!!! Paul's doctrine is consistent with what Jesus taught, don't be foolish to think it isn't. YOU should actually read it! If you say Paul disagreed or despised Peter (or vice versa), I disagree, there is no factual basis for such a claim.
Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, Peter to the Jews, Since these were different views, it is impossible that they agree over everything. It seems the strength of Paul's argument won over Peter in Galatians 2, as Peter never mentions it. Peter was the only one with the power to refute Paul's testimony, it is surprising that by not doing so, it can be implied that he accepted him. It is also a judgment of the truth and purity of his doctrine.
2007-03-09 03:17:04 · answer #7 · answered by great gig in the sky 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Arguably Peter was more influential as it was through him that the church was established. As for going to hell, no matter what form of religion you follow its unlikely you'd be doomed to hell because of it. Or do we really think Muslims, Buddhists etc don't go to heaven? Of course they do
2007-03-09 03:21:51 · answer #8 · answered by tara_365 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Paul met Jesus
2007-03-09 03:18:21 · answer #9 · answered by gwhiz1052 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I suppose the point missed most by Bible readers is Jesus instructed the original 80 that he ordained "to avoid the Gentiles". So, we haven't missed a thing.
2007-03-09 03:18:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋