Judith said
Still, with Paul’s distinctly different gospel and vowing that it was the true gospel, how could there not be real confusion even today as to what the gospel of Jesus is.
That’s a question I have as well. There is a lot in the Gospels that isn’t part of what Paul talked about. Perhaps Paul was right all along in that he was preaching the “true” gospel and the later Gospel writers were creative in what they wrote. They each had an agenda and a different audience so how much did they skew what Jesus taught to what their audience wanted/needed to hear?
Judith said
Greg,
Still, with Paul’s distinctly different gospel and vowing that it was the true gospel, how could there not be real confusion even today as to what the gospel of Jesus is.
Not to answer for Greg, but this is an interesting question. Consider John of Patmos excoriations in Revelation compared to Pauline Christians.
spiker said
Judith said
Greg,Still, with Paul’s distinctly different gospel and vowing that it was the true gospel, how could there not be real confusion even today as to what the gospel of Jesus is.
Not to answer for Greg, but this is an interesting question. Consider John of Patmos excoriations in Revelation compared to Pauline Christians.
Haven’t really taken time to consider thoughtfully but John of Patmos (an apostle of Jesus) having “harsh criticism” (excoriartions) in Revelation compared to Pauline Christians – how could that John and Paul not be at odds with the meaning of gospel if John thought of it as the Kingdom of God at hand and Paul saying the gospel was Jesus’ death on the cross as the atonement for sins? Or am I understanding you, right, Spker?
John of Patmos was not the disciple John so you can’t say that he believed the KoG was at hand. John of Patmos talks about the apostles, but he never claims to be one, never claims to have known Jesus and doesn’t include himself amongst those apostles (as a group) he talks about.
Greg Matthews said
John of Patmos was not the disciple John so you can’t say that he believed the KoG was at hand. John of Patmos talks about the apostles, but he never claims to be one, never claims to have known Jesus and doesn’t include himself amongst those apostles (as a group) he talks about.
True and I actually knew that but was unfamiliar with the “John of Patmos” designation, googled it and came up with that definition, assuming Spiker meant that but he didn’t. It was a wrong definition.
We obviously need someone here to keep us straight so thanks, Greg.
Greg Matthews said
That’s a question I have as well. There is a lot in the Gospels that isn’t part of what Paul talked about. Perhaps Paul was right all along in that he was preaching the “true” gospel and the later Gospel writers were creative in what they wrote. They each had an agenda and a different audience so how much did they skew what Jesus taught to what their audience wanted/needed to hear?
That’s what I call thinking out of the box. And it seems to be the most accepted understanding now for what the gospel is.
Hi guys, New here but enjoying the discussions.
I don’t think Jesus and Paul were talking about the same things. Jesus was talking to the Jews about Jewish things and the Jewish nation, nothing to do with “Gentiles” for the most part whereas Paul was proclaiming a new kingdom with neither Greek nor Jew.
That’s how it seems to me.
Love Teresa X
teresa said
Hi guys, New here but enjoying the discussions.I don’t think Jesus and Paul were talking about the same things. Jesus was talking to the Jews about Jewish things and the Jewish nation, nothing to do with “Gentiles” for the most part whereas Paul was proclaiming a new kingdom with neither Greek nor Jew.
That’s how it seems to me.
Love Teresa X
I don’t really agree with that. Paul wasn’t trying to say there was no longer any need for Judaism or Mosaic Law. He preached that in order to obtain salvation one did not need to follow Mosaic Law. He didn’t try to convince the “pillars of Jerusalem” of this. He said, you guys preach to the Jews and I’ll preach to the Gentiles. Also, if Acts is to be believed, at the instigation of James, Paul performed Jewish rituals to prove he still followed the Law. Those aren’t the actions of a man proclaiming a new Kingdom with neither Greek nor Jew. He still retained his Jewishness. He just said that everyone else didn’t have to become Jewish in order to take part in the salvation Jesus offered.
Happy blogging with us, Teresa!
So tell us what you think the gospel or “good news” of Jesus is.
I had thought it was ‘the kingdom of God is at hand’ meaning for those of us born again in the spirit, we live our lives with God and God through us in a way that can be thought of as ‘the kingdom of God’. I know – it may be a mere right-brain sort of thing but what happens to us and through us is a wonder.
There are those who believe ‘the kingdom of God’ has to do with the future when Jesus returns.
On the other hand, Paul was emphatic that his gospel was the true gospel. His has nothing to do with ‘the kingdom of God’.
To me it’s ludicrous that we can’t know with certainty.
Judith said
Haven’t really taken time to consider thoughtfully but John of Patmos (an apostle of Jesus) having “harsh criticism” (excoriartions) in Revelation compared to Pauline Christians – how could that John and Paul not be at odds with the meaning of gospel if John thought of it as the Kingdom of God at hand and Paul saying the gospel was Jesus’ death on the cross as the atonement for sins? Or am I understanding you, right, Spker?
Yea, I think the KoG V Death of atonement is more an artifact of timing. I’m pretty sure Paul believed that the KoG was at hand.
But the Resurrection and Death of Atonement become significant only after the fact. The key here is the substance of those criticisms. If memory serves John’s criticism is about things like, e.g, eating food dedicated to idols; a sacrilege for Jews, but Paul seems to have thought it was unimportant (I Think because other God’s weren’t real) This may be the source of the whole false prophets theme. I can’t say whether his criticisms were aimed at Paul, but they seem to be made about those who accepted his teachings. It may be that the writing of revelation marks an important breaking point in Gentile/Jewish Christianity
Prof Ehrman argued in a Post entitled ** you do not have permission to see this link **
“…both Jesus and Paul agreed that there was a cosmic judge soon to appear from heaven to destroy the forces of evil. For Jesus that one was the Son of Man (in class I argue that Jesus was not talking about himself); for Paul it was Jesus. So is that the same or (fundamentally) different? One could argue that both Jesus and Paul are deeply rooted in Jewish apocalyptic thinking, hence the similarity, but that the exact way of understanding was radically different. Or one could argue that Paul is simply reflecting the teaching of Jesus for a new situation, after the resurrection…” ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Also, I second Greg’s point about John of Patmos. If you look through Revelation for information about the author, there is extremely little, but enough to identify him as John of Patmos. This is the identification dominating Elaine Pagel’s book, BTW and I doubt you will find many outside certain christian circles who will go with the John the Disciple authorship. I doubt there’s any evidence for that other than they were both named John. We have to work more from what’s derived from evidence than presupposition. (After all, that side has already been monopolized by the late Sye Ten Bruggencate et al).
Judith said
On the other hand, Paul was emphatic that his gospel was the true gospel. His has nothing to do with ‘the kingdom of God’.
To me it’s ludicrous that we can’t know with certainty.
Paul’s assertion about preaching the true gospel was not made vis the disciples version. He simply claims to have received it from the horses mouth without any influence from the disciples. Remember too that in the context of Galatians, Paul is defending himself against charges that we can only guess at. It’s at least conceivable that he might have been exaggerating his independence from them. After all, two maybe three times, he returns to Jerusalem to “confer with” “those recognized as leaders”. It’s a bit odd that he gets his understanding right from the horses mouth but has to make sure he ” was not running or had already run in vain.”
teresa said
Hi guys, New here but enjoying the discussions.I don’t think Jesus and Paul were talking about the same things. Jesus was talking to the Jews about Jewish things and the Jewish nation, nothing to do with “Gentiles” for the most part whereas Paul was proclaiming a new kingdom with neither Greek nor Jew.
That’s how it seems to me.
Love Teresa X
Welcome aboard, T
I think we want to be careful about the Jew/Gentile distinction. I think you’ll find that the subject is complicated. It’s quite possible that this is more an artifact of and handling if you will. Think of that in terms of Nietzsche’s purported antisemitism: The argument there is that his sister edited his work and is responsible for the antisemitic content. How does that help us think about what Jesus said? We have potentially the same situation. The thoughts of a given person being selected according to the beliefs of the person writing about them. Suppose for the sake of argument, that Mark really was Peter’s secretary, but every time Peter mentioned preaching to the gentiles, he just thought to himself(being a good traditional jew) that Peter was off his rocker and was just wrong.
The responses here are what I’ve been waiting for and hoping to find. The fact that others have grappled for answers – or else they would not have read so extensively – is reassuring and nourishes that sense that I am not alone though I really am with all the fundies among friends and family. And so I am grateful.
I am determined to find a way to broadcast Dr. Ehrman’s work so that it is as readily known to all as we know about band-aids when we need one. I’ll begin a new topic and hope we can put our heads together. Let’s quadruple the number of blog members! 🙂
Greg Matthews said
I don’t really agree with that. Paul wasn’t trying to say there was no longer any need for Judaism or Mosaic Law. He preached that in order to obtain salvation one did not need to follow Mosaic Law. He didn’t try to convince the “pillars of Jerusalem” of this. He said, you guys preach to the Jews and I’ll preach to the Gentiles. Also, if Acts is to be believed, at the instigation of James, Paul performed Jewish rituals to prove he still followed the Law. Those aren’t the actions of a man proclaiming a new Kingdom with neither Greek nor Jew. He still retained his Jewishness. He just said that everyone else didn’t have to become Jewish in order to take part in the salvation Jesus offered.
Hi Greg,
I’m thinking particularly of Pauls letter to the Galatians where he says that “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
To me I see Paul speaking about a new life in the Spirit where the law didn’t have a place and where we are all part of the same spiritual man.
Teresa x
That’s exactly what he’s saying, but that doesn’t have anything to do with Jews no longer being an ethnic group that still held to Mosaic Law. See my previous comments. Paul repeatedly says, in Romans, Galatians and 2 Corinthians that CHRISTIANS are not bound by Mosaic Law. He says nothing about Jews and everyone else (what he meant when he just said “Greek”) no longer being separate entities. As I said before, he himself underwent purification rituals at the behest of James. Why would he do that if he wanted to promote the idea that the religio-ethnic identity of Jews no longer existed?
Judith said
Happy blogging with us, Teresa!So tell us what you think the gospel or “good news” of Jesus is.
I had thought it was ‘the kingdom of God is at hand’ meaning for those of us born again in the spirit, we live our lives with God and God through us in a way that can be thought of as ‘the kingdom of God’. I know – it may be a mere right-brain sort of thing but what happens to us and through us is a wonder.
There are those who believe ‘the kingdom of God’ has to do with the future when Jesus returns.
On the other hand, Paul was emphatic that his gospel was the true gospel. His has nothing to do with ‘the kingdom of God’.
To me it’s ludicrous that we can’t know with certainty.
Hi Judith,
After many years I’ve reached this conclusion about what the gospel is. to me It’s that God loves me (us) absolutely, without compromise, without regret and I (we)can completely trust myself in his hands, I am his responsibility. I’ve clumsily inserted “us” and “we” because I don’t want anyone to get the idea that I’m excluding anyone.
I also can see nothing in the scriptures that would make me believe in a return of Jesus to this earth in the future although I can see that Jesus spoke of it and Paul expected it but my opinion is that we belong to a spiritual kingdom and that’s where our life is.
Teresa x
Greg Matthews said
That’s exactly what he’s saying, but that doesn’t have anything to do with Jews no longer being an ethnic group that still held to Mosaic Law. See my previous comments. Paul repeatedly says, in Romans, Galatians and 2 Corinthians that CHRISTIANS are not bound by Mosaic Law. He says nothing about Jews and everyone else (what he meant when he just said “Greek”) no longer being separate entities. As I said before, he himself underwent purification rituals at the behest of James. Why would he do that if he wanted to promote the idea that the religio-ethnic identity of Jews no longer existed?
Hi Greg,
I agree with you Paul certainly saw that the religio- ethnic identity of the Jews still existed but he also saw a completely new identity for everyone who was part of the body of Christ.
Teresa x
spiker said
Welcome aboard, T
I think we want to be careful about the Jew/Gentile distinction. I think you’ll find that the subject is complicated. It’s quite possible that this is more an artifact of and handling if you will. Think of that in terms of Nietzsche’s purported antisemitism: The argument there is that his sister edited his work and is responsible for the antisemitic content. How does that help us think about what Jesus said? We have potentially the same situation. The thoughts of a given person being selected according to the beliefs of the person writing about them. Suppose for the sake of argument, that Mark really was Peter’s secretary, but every time Peter mentioned preaching to the gentiles, he just thought to himself(being a good traditional jew) that Peter was off his rocker and was just wrong.
Hi Spiker,
. . . and really that’s the problem isn’t it we just can’t tell from the written information we have what exactly the truth is. I understand in a forum like this there will be believers and non believers, I will lay my cards on the table and say that I am a believer but I do not believe that the bible is my gateway to God. In my experience, and I may be just odd, I found the bible to be quite a depressing book, on the one hand I could find scriptures which made me feel secure and others which plain contradicted what I had just read.
This is one of the reasons I so enjoy Prof Ehrmans work, he strips away the hype and holiness and just gets to grips with the text. . . so refreshing.
For me God is alive and present and Ihave a connection to him, it’s just a question of trusting him and being open to what he shows me.
Teresa x
I have read all but the last fifty pages or so of Dr. Ehrman’s Jesus Before the Gospels. It’s very helpful in understanding why “gospel” or good news is difficult to define. That book along with all the posted comments here have been very helpful.
Now can we move along to ideas for ways to increase the number of CIA bloggers beyond Dr. Ehrman’s wildest hopes and dreams? (See my new topic listed a few days ago.)
teresa said
Hi Spiker,
. . . I found the bible to be quite a depressing book, on the one hand I could find scriptures which made me feel secure and others plainli contradicted what I had just read.
It helps to know that the Bible(specifically the NT) is just a bunch of books by different authors with different opinions.
Craig Keener made a great point
The first readers of Mark could not flip over to Revelation to help them understand Mark; Revelation had not been written yet. The first readers of Galatians did not have a copy of the letter Paul wrote to Rome to help them understand it.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
But the overall idea that the bible is the proper context to evaluate its teachings: In the sense that one should look to a different book for for the appropriate meaning is just wrong. You want to let the authors speak for themselves.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)