If not for Paul, would there even have been a church? Would it have grown, or would it have been stamped out? Would it have spread through Rome to Europe and the West? Would it have stayed a small, limited faith?
I affirm a somewhat unorthodox (unusual?) view of Christian history.
Prior to Jesus' arrival, there were prophecies of the messiah coming and the messiah being a man of suffering, and there were also prophecies of him being a man of glory and sitting on David's own thrown.
Because of the cross (and indeed, Paul's own limited understanding) the former have been emphasized, and the latter said to refer to the second coming.
But scripture says (Jesus said) that "all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John". Which really indicates that the dual nature of the prophecies regarding Jesus being a man of suffering or a man of glory both referred to the potential of Jesus' advent. Which potential would play out depending entirely on how the Israelites responded to Jesus.
As "the chosen" they were in a position to, as representatives of all mankind, to either accept Jesus and glorify him, or to reject him and necessitate the course of suffering (the cross). Examination of the scripture from this position yields a very different view of what took place, and that the cross was NOT inevitable, but a necessity required because, through faithlessness, the Jews rejected Jesus, and so he had to pay the price with his physical life.
(Note: Jesus could forgive sins BEFORE he was crucified).
What's the implication here? It is that Christianity was not the original preferred course God and Jesus wanted, but a result caused by faithlessness on the part of men.
And while Jesus gained the spiritual victory OVER that faithlessness through the crucifixion (so that all who believe in him are freed from that burden, and inherit his foundation), he paid the price of his flesh to do it.
So, Christianity began on an already limited foundation, destined only to be perfected when Christ returns. So while Paul spread Christianity to the Western world, and this expanded to the worldwide foundation of Christianity prior to 1900's, Paul's theology itself was necessarily limited. Jesus was unable to stay with Paul, and teach Paul, directly in person and raise his disciples to the level of understanding where he was able to "teach them many things" (but he could not when alive, because they cannot bear them at the time).
The scripture is perfect enough for its purpose, which is to prepare worldwide mankind to build a foundation to receive the second coming of the messiah, just as the purpose of the mosaic law was to prepare a people on the national level to receive the messiah.
But when Christ returns, the old and new testaments will be fulfilled in a final completed testament, where unlike in Paul's time (and in the time dominated by Paul's theology) we will see "Face to face" and "know even as we are known", instead of seeing as in a mirror darkly.
Just as all our parents are flawed, they nonetheless love us and give us the best that they could. Likewise, we should not judge Paul too harshly, but rather appreciate what he was able to accomplish for God and Jesus, given his (and the providence's) difficult situation where Jesus was not received but rejected, and where instead of living a long, fulfilling life teaching the people and raising them and establishing his own lineage on earth, Jesus instead had to pay the price of faithlessness, in order to open the path to spiritual salvation.
Even today, though we believe in the cross, yet our bodies are NOT redeemed, and they still legally belong to the devil. Which is why the world has remained under the control of evil, and evil has constantly infiltrated God's good foundation on Earth, despite the salvation of the Cross.
The divisions with the church are a direct result of the faithlessness of the Israelite forcing Jesus to fulfill the prophecy of suffering in order to redeem all mankind by payment of his flesh, and leave the work of building the foundation to his limited disciples, instead of being there in the physical world to direct it himself.
I told you this was an unorthodox view! But it is one that tempers a recognition of the limitations of Paul's legacy with recognition of the value he contributed, considering the extreme difficulty of the situation, where essentially, the entire foundation from Abraham to Jesus was lost because of the failure of the Israelites at the crucial time.
Thank you, and yes a little unorthodox BUT all that means is you don't agree with the consensus of the controlling bodies on this - i.e the churches, but in 1st Century the Pharisees, Scribes, etc. and one only needs to look at the conversations between Jesus and them to understand that they had gone astray from God's intentions.
I don't believe that either the failure of Israel nor the church was something which caught God out. He knew from the time of creation, and indeed as Jesus was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world he made provision for our redemption.
The simple fact, IMHO, is that God desires our love (not to be confused with sloppy romantic love as many modern worship songs and preaching suggest), now He could have made us as robots programmed to return His love BUT that isn't what He desires at all. So He gave us free will but provided signposts along the way, so in the OT we end up with Talmudic Rabbinic worship of God and in NT Pauline Christianity - which is clearly different from Christ's Way.
The problem comes when both of these is that they end us as controlling organisations. 'I do not permit ...' says Paul, He suggests He received all this 'not from flesh and blood ...' but provides no evidence - in modern day parlance the Mormans have Joseph Smith and his 'golden tablets - only seen by him, and the established church calls this a cult! The problem with Paul, Rabbis and the like is you end up with a mixture of what God intended mixed with many philosophy - which never works, it is an apostacy.
To be clear as far as Paul is concerned I find many contradictions in things he wrote, and these are contrary to what the OT says, I find in places he misquotes or misapplies the OT scriptures, yet also says some profound things which do accord with the OT and relative to Jesus teaching. However if one espouses these in the church one is immediately condemned a heretic.
In the final analysis I believe that when Jesus returns - stone cut without hands - and established His worldwide rule we will indeed see the truth of the way God has called us to live. At which point two things will have happened - the New Covenant will be on the hearts and minds of those who will be priest and kings with Him, and we shall not sin however the unconverted at that time will still sin (Isaiah 65:20-25) - Paul terms this as 'the new creation' and 'corruption changed to incorruption'.
Secondly when we see the truth of 'the Way' which Jesus spoke of we shall indeed realise that we have needed God all along much more than our feeble minds ever thought, and that out human thoughts and ideas of worshipping our Creator were so wrong, and how we really needed Him to show us the right way. But more in order to get point and to ensure as many as will come to repentance do, as John writes:
John 1:12-13 ... as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Paul hunted and kills Christians.
Have a nice day.
And in the process filled the church with so many conflicting doctrines that we are not a untied body!
True, but perspective is very important here.
If not for Paul, would there even have been a church? Would it have grown, or would it have been stamped out? Would it have spread through Rome to Europe and the West? Would it have stayed a small, limited faith?
I affirm a somewhat unorthodox (unusual?) view of Christian history.
Prior to Jesus' arrival, there were prophecies of the messiah coming and the messiah being a man of suffering, and there were also prophecies of him being a man of glory and sitting on David's own thrown.
Because of the cross (and indeed, Paul's own limited understanding) the former have been emphasized, and the latter said to refer to the second coming.
But scripture says (Jesus said) that "all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John". Which really indicates that the dual nature of the prophecies regarding Jesus being a man of suffering or a man of glory both referred to the potential of Jesus' advent. Which potential would play out depending entirely on how the Israelites responded to Jesus.
As "the chosen" they were in a position to, as representatives of all mankind, to either accept Jesus and glorify him, or to reject him and necessitate the course of suffering (the cross). Examination of the scripture from this position yields a very different view of what took place, and that the cross was NOT inevitable, but a necessity required because, through faithlessness, the Jews rejected Jesus, and so he had to pay the price with his physical life.
(Note: Jesus could forgive sins BEFORE he was crucified).
What's the implication here? It is that Christianity was not the original preferred course God and Jesus wanted, but a result caused by faithlessness on the part of men.
And while Jesus gained the spiritual victory OVER that faithlessness through the crucifixion (so that all who believe in him are freed from that burden, and inherit his foundation), he paid the price of his flesh to do it.
So, Christianity began on an already limited foundation, destined only to be perfected when Christ returns. So while Paul spread Christianity to the Western world, and this expanded to the worldwide foundation of Christianity prior to 1900's, Paul's theology itself was necessarily limited. Jesus was unable to stay with Paul, and teach Paul, directly in person and raise his disciples to the level of understanding where he was able to "teach them many things" (but he could not when alive, because they cannot bear them at the time).
The scripture is perfect enough for its purpose, which is to prepare worldwide mankind to build a foundation to receive the second coming of the messiah, just as the purpose of the mosaic law was to prepare a people on the national level to receive the messiah.
But when Christ returns, the old and new testaments will be fulfilled in a final completed testament, where unlike in Paul's time (and in the time dominated by Paul's theology) we will see "Face to face" and "know even as we are known", instead of seeing as in a mirror darkly.
Just as all our parents are flawed, they nonetheless love us and give us the best that they could. Likewise, we should not judge Paul too harshly, but rather appreciate what he was able to accomplish for God and Jesus, given his (and the providence's) difficult situation where Jesus was not received but rejected, and where instead of living a long, fulfilling life teaching the people and raising them and establishing his own lineage on earth, Jesus instead had to pay the price of faithlessness, in order to open the path to spiritual salvation.
Even today, though we believe in the cross, yet our bodies are NOT redeemed, and they still legally belong to the devil. Which is why the world has remained under the control of evil, and evil has constantly infiltrated God's good foundation on Earth, despite the salvation of the Cross.
The divisions with the church are a direct result of the faithlessness of the Israelite forcing Jesus to fulfill the prophecy of suffering in order to redeem all mankind by payment of his flesh, and leave the work of building the foundation to his limited disciples, instead of being there in the physical world to direct it himself.
I told you this was an unorthodox view! But it is one that tempers a recognition of the limitations of Paul's legacy with recognition of the value he contributed, considering the extreme difficulty of the situation, where essentially, the entire foundation from Abraham to Jesus was lost because of the failure of the Israelites at the crucial time.
Thank you, and yes a little unorthodox BUT all that means is you don't agree with the consensus of the controlling bodies on this - i.e the churches, but in 1st Century the Pharisees, Scribes, etc. and one only needs to look at the conversations between Jesus and them to understand that they had gone astray from God's intentions.
I don't believe that either the failure of Israel nor the church was something which caught God out. He knew from the time of creation, and indeed as Jesus was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world he made provision for our redemption.
The simple fact, IMHO, is that God desires our love (not to be confused with sloppy romantic love as many modern worship songs and preaching suggest), now He could have made us as robots programmed to return His love BUT that isn't what He desires at all. So He gave us free will but provided signposts along the way, so in the OT we end up with Talmudic Rabbinic worship of God and in NT Pauline Christianity - which is clearly different from Christ's Way.
The problem comes when both of these is that they end us as controlling organisations. 'I do not permit ...' says Paul, He suggests He received all this 'not from flesh and blood ...' but provides no evidence - in modern day parlance the Mormans have Joseph Smith and his 'golden tablets - only seen by him, and the established church calls this a cult! The problem with Paul, Rabbis and the like is you end up with a mixture of what God intended mixed with many philosophy - which never works, it is an apostacy.
To be clear as far as Paul is concerned I find many contradictions in things he wrote, and these are contrary to what the OT says, I find in places he misquotes or misapplies the OT scriptures, yet also says some profound things which do accord with the OT and relative to Jesus teaching. However if one espouses these in the church one is immediately condemned a heretic.
In the final analysis I believe that when Jesus returns - stone cut without hands - and established His worldwide rule we will indeed see the truth of the way God has called us to live. At which point two things will have happened - the New Covenant will be on the hearts and minds of those who will be priest and kings with Him, and we shall not sin however the unconverted at that time will still sin (Isaiah 65:20-25) - Paul terms this as 'the new creation' and 'corruption changed to incorruption'.
Secondly when we see the truth of 'the Way' which Jesus spoke of we shall indeed realise that we have needed God all along much more than our feeble minds ever thought, and that out human thoughts and ideas of worshipping our Creator were so wrong, and how we really needed Him to show us the right way. But more in order to get point and to ensure as many as will come to repentance do, as John writes:
John 1:12-13 ... as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
My Unorthodoxy