Robert said

Perhaps the one ironic/humorous element of Nikos Kazantzakis’ The Last Temptation of Christ that made it into the movie:

** you do not have permission to see this link **  

Paul really was a wizard.  Thing is, none of Jesus’ disciples were writers.  Paul was, and a great one.  They weren’t theologians either, and ditto.  They were just figuring out things to do while waiting for Jesus to come back.  Much as Paul believed Jesus would come back, he had found his life’s work, and typically one’s life’s work is creating something that will live on after you.  Which in his case, it couldn’t have done if Jesus had come back.  No churches in the Kingdom.  Redundant.  

So he changed everything–but as you say, perhaps it was the reaction to this that gives us at least some legitimate memories of Jesus, who he was, what he wanted.  And I continue to believe we’re better off for that, since the the Pauls are with us always (and not all of them are theologians–or pacifists–as the 20th century attests).  

The ones like Jesus are so rare.  So precious.  We should remember them all.  And I suspect we’ve forgotten nearly all of them.  

Leaving aside that we have maybe seven legitimate letters of Paul, there were probably others we don’t have, and he might well have discussed other differences with Peter in those–no.  You’re missing a very important distinction.

Paul differs with Peter on the issue of the gentiles because Paul is much more gung ho about proselytizing than Peter.  Peter knew Jesus, knew that Jesus didn’t believe conversion was necessary for someone to enter the Kingdom.  Conversion to what? It’s quite clear Jesus wasn’t out to create a new religion.  But Paul is.  

Peter is more concerned with convincing his fellow Jews who Jesus was, and being a good shepherd to those who have converted.  If Christians are increasingly not observing the Jewish laws regarding diet, circumcision, etc, that makes it easier for unconverted Jews to say that becoming a follower of Jesus means abandoning the faith of their ancestors (which ultimately proved to be the case). 

Paul, believing that salvation requires more than just being a good person–the  Pharisaic Judaism he was raised in was quite different from that of Peter or James–more systematic and rules-based, and it left its mark on him, even as he rebelled against it.  

Having a general passion for missionary work, he wants to convert as many as possible, and clearly gentiles are the growth market.  For him, dropping the requirement to eat kosher and have your foreskin removed is vital to his mission.  He may personally still consider himself a Jew, observe those laws, but he no longer considers that of primary importance.  

It’s a very important difference, but clearly one that Peter and Paul could agree to overlook, since they both agreed there should be more people who revered Jesus, and followed his teachings.  Paul’s conversion would have been a significant coup–almost a miracle, given what a determined enemy he’d been.  So Peter would want to accommodate Paul as much as possible, and Paul being off in the larger gentile world means he’s no longer a thorn in Peter’s side.   

A disagreement over who Jesus was has vastly more power to create division in the new religion (which is certainly what Paul sees it as).  Paul doesn’t want to create a split.  So he advocates for his vision of Jesus, yes–but without highlighting differences he has about it with people who actually knew Jesus–and when you think about it, if he wants to persuade people that his vision of Jesus is the right one, makes no sense for him to say “People who knew Jesus disagree with me about this.”  Undercuts him with his own flock.  Whereas saying he advocated successfully for gentiles to be able to join without following the Jewish laws enhances his status as essentially on equal standing with Jesus’ successor and his brother. 

On the subject of how to proceed with a project that according to Jesus’ own words should not even be necessary (since the Kingdom should have come already), there are no experts, no final authorities.  But on the subject of Jesus himself, these are people who knew Jesus as a physical being, witnessed his life and ministry.  Peter was chosen by Jesus, James is Jesus’ blood kin–so Paul is going to be much more deferential there.  Or he’ll end up losing influence in a cult he has decided to devote his life to.

They all agreed Jesus had divine qualities–as Bart has pointed out, this wasn’t so uncommon a thing to think about someone, in both Jewish and Pagan culture.  The barrier between human and divine was always porous in those days.  But Peter and James knew Jesus as a man, and Paul didn’t. That’s why Paul tended to emphasize the divine much more than the human.   

We don’t know what Paul was preaching in those early days, before he wrote those letters.  Very likely he started out repeating very much what he’d heard from Peter, James, and other Christians who had mentored him, gradually adding his contributions as he went along.  As his confidence (and authority) grew, his own ideas came to the fore, and by that time it was impossible for Peter (who was not the first Pope, no matter what the Vatican says) to do much of anything about it.  At a certain point, Paul had brought in more converts than anyone, and he could teach his own ideas as much as he wanted–but I doubt he began with those ideas.  

The letters are, you might say, the advanced class, for people he had brought into the fold himself–and why, may I ask, is he writing those letters?  As we know, because he’s afraid they’re being influenced by ideas other than his own about Jesus.  Meaning there were ideas other than his own about Jesus.  Q.E.D.  

Christians spent a long long time arguing Christology.  It began with a handful of people who knew Jesus, and who probably had disagreements even then, but put them aside.  It very quickly became a situation where the majority never knew him as a human being, and Christologies proliferated.  

But even Paul saw Jesus as subordinate to God.  Not merely from the time of his birth, but from the dawn of creation. 

Btw–and this is a bit puzzling–you say the absence of any references in Paul’s letters to any differences between him and Peter other than gentile converts being made to follow the Jewish laws means there were no other differences.

There are many reasons why he might not bring this up in his letters, as I mentioned.  Wanting to maintain a united front, for one.  But if we assume that he’d bring up anything that mattered in his letters, why doesn’t he bring up the Virgin Birth? 

Odds are, this is itself something he and Peter and James were in agreement about.  It didn’t happen.  The stories may have begun to proliferate by the time Paul was writing (or not), but if that is the case, Paul and Peter and James were not among those spreading them.  As is evidenced by the fact that two of the gospels, written decades after Paul, make no mention of anything unusual about Jesus’ birth–not even John, whose Christology is even higher than Paul’s.

The Virgin Birth was a story that appealed primarily to those raised in pagan faiths, familiar to them.  It was never going to come from a Christian who was raised Jewish.

brenmcg said

The point about wanting to keep a united front is negated by the fact the Paul says he opposed Peter to his face. We hear in Acts about the trouble Paul had back in Jerusalem. The fact that neither of these involved disagreements over the nature of christ, which would have been outrageously blasphemous to most Jews, is good evidence they all agreed on it.

Yes quite possibly Peter, Paul and James did not believe in the virgin birth. But it is not a pagan idea, miraculous births happen in the OT, just not to virgins. Isaac for instance was miraculously conceived.

Also Johns christology is not higher than Paul’s. Being the word of God is not higher than being Lord and “him though whom all things are created and through whom we live.”  

Yes, miraculous births–that occur after two humans have sex.  

On the basis of seven legitimate letters, written some years after Paul converted, we have no basis for assuming he and Peter and James were on the same page with regards to who Jesus was, and there’s ample reason to believe they weren’t.  Because lots of early Christians weren’t, and that was the case for centuries to come.

Paul couldn’t have a united front with Paul and the others with regards to converting gentiles, because that was his special area.  Paul generally did avoid getting drawn into fights that would damage his position in the church, but without the ability to convert gentiles (which he can’t very well do if he’s got to make them get circumcised and give up traif) he has no position at all, other than “Guy who used to persecute Christians who now is one.”  Not enough.   

You don’t have an argument, so you just play defense.  That works if you’re arguing from an Orthodox Christian standpoint, but you insist you’re not.  So it does not track.

Do you work at making your posts unreadable, or is it just a natural gift?

godspell said

On the basis of seven legitimate letters, written some years after Paul converted, we have no basis for assuming he and Peter and James were on the same page with regards to who Jesus was, and there’s ample reason to believe they weren’t.  Because lots of early Christians weren’t, and that was the case for centuries to come.

We do have a basis for it because Paul says in his letters that he presented his gospel to the leaders in Jerusalem because he wanted to make sure they agreed with it.

Paul says he was preaching the faith he tried to destroy. 

He says God was at work with Peter as an apostle to the circumcised and was at work with him as an apostle to the gentiles.

There’s no 1stC material contradicting any of this – you may be right in saying Peter and James disagreed with Paul on the nature of christ, but its speculation, there’s no historical basis for it.