Did Paul Accept Jesus's Teachings?

[Damien the Leper]

The following video demonstrates how Paul and Jesus were equally apocalyptic Jews but viewed theology and salvation differently. I enjoy that there are aspects they both agree on but in the end represent their own theology differently. Ehrman demonstrates that the historical Jesus was not concerned with Gentiles. How does such lack of concern reflect on supposed revelation and theological ideology? Check it out.

Ehrman link

[Hamilton Porter]

If you want to be real edgy, explore whether ... edited for blasphemy.

This will not be tolerated. Everyone clean up your comments before I have to do it for you.

Skylla

[Eschaton]

Good topic. Very clearly Jesus' model of salvation was quite different - if you wanted to be a part of the new imperial rule of God, the key was doing good toward the poor. For Paul, it came down to allegiance to Jesus and trust in his atonement. Christian atonement theology only developed in reaction to Jesus' death, not in anticipation of it. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Eschaton

[teddyaware]

6 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

The following video demonstrates how Paul and Jesus were equally apocalyptic Jews but viewed theology and salvation differently. I enjoy that there are aspects they both agree on but in the end represent their own theology differently. Ehrman demonstrates that the historical Jesus was not concerned with Gentiles. How does such lack of concern reflect on supposed revelation and theological ideology? Check it out.

Ehrman link

The Book of Mormon prophets and the teachings of Christ himself, in 3 Nephi, powerfully contradict Ehrman’s “learned” suppositions. What follows is a perfect example of the how Book of Mormon confounds false doctrines.

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they (the Lord’s disciples in the Holy Land) understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. (3 Nephi 15)

The Savior saying it was his will and design to bring salvation to the Gentiles by the preaching of the apostles and prophets, and by the revelations of the Holy Ghost, is a far cry from making the presumptuous claim that the Lord was unconcerned about bringing salvation to the gentiles. This is what happens when so-called scholarship takes precedence over the word of God. In order to believe that Paul preached to the gentiles of his own accord, and not by commandment from the Savior, one has to discard the Book of Acts and Paul’s own epistles wherein it’s made clear that Paul was sent to bring salvation to the gentiles by commandment from the Lord.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he (Paul) hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Edited May 24, 2023 by teddyaware

[Hamilton Porter]

17 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon prophets and the teachings of Christ himself, in 3 Nephi, powerfully contradict Ehrman’s “learned” suppositions. What follows is a perfect example of the how Book of Mormon confounds false doctrines.

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they (the Lord’s disciples in the Holy Land) understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. (3 Nephi 15)

The Savior saying it was his will and design to bring salvation to the Gentiles by the preaching of the apostles and prophets, and by the revelations of the Holy Ghost, is a far cry from making the presumptuous claim that the Lord was unconcerned about bringing salvation to the gentiles. This is what happens when so-called scholarship takes precedence over the word of God. In order to believe that Paul preached to the gentiles of his own accord, and not by commandment from the Savior, one has to discard the Book of Acts and Paul’s own epistles wherein it’s made clear that Paul was sent to bring salvation to the gentiles by commandment from the Lord.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he (Paul) hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

You don't even have to go there. Jesus ministered to Samaritans and a syro-phoenician women.

If you're a skeptic you can chuck out anything Jesus said to fit your thesis. And the pathologically ignorant media will swallow whatever sensationalist crap you have to say.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

10 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Good topic. Very clearly Jesus' model of salvation was quite different - if you wanted to be a part of the new imperial rule of God, the key was doing good toward the poor. For Paul, it came down to allegiance to Jesus and trust in his atonement. Christian atonement theology only developed in reaction to Jesus' death, not in anticipation of it. 

Paul lived a great life, just as Jesus did, both “fought the good fight”. 

[Eschaton]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Paul lived a great life, just as Jesus did, both “fought the good fight”. 

Indeed. 

[Eschaton]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon prophets and the teachings of Christ himself, in 3 Nephi, powerfully contradict Ehrman’s “learned” suppositions. What follows is a perfect example of the how Book of Mormon confounds false doctrines.

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they (the Lord’s disciples in the Holy Land) understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. (3 Nephi 15)

The Savior saying it was his will and design to bring salvation to the Gentiles by the preaching of the apostles and prophets, and by the revelations of the Holy Ghost, is a far cry from making the presumptuous claim that the Lord was unconcerned about bringing salvation to the gentiles. This is what happens when so-called scholarship takes precedence over the word of God. In order to believe that Paul preached to the gentiles of his own accord, and not by commandment from the Savior, one has to discard the Book of Acts and Paul’s own epistles wherein it’s made clear that Paul was sent to bring salvation to the gentiles by commandment from the Lord.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he (Paul) hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

You're talking about LDS doctrine, Ehrman is talking about history. Two very different ways of looking at the same concepts.  

Edited May 24, 2023 by Eschaton

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon prophets and the teachings of Christ himself, in 3 Nephi, powerfully contradict Ehrman’s “learned” suppositions. What follows is a perfect example of the how Book of Mormon confounds false doctrines.

21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

22 And they (the Lord’s disciples in the Holy Land) understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.

23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. (3 Nephi 15)

The Savior saying it was his will and design to bring salvation to the Gentiles by the preaching of the apostles and prophets, and by the revelations of the Holy Ghost, is a far cry from making the presumptuous claim that the Lord was unconcerned about bringing salvation to the gentiles. This is what happens when so-called scholarship takes precedence over the word of God. In order to believe that Paul preached to the gentiles of his own accord, and not by commandment from the Savior, one has to discard the Book of Acts and Paul’s own epistles wherein it’s made clear that Paul was sent to bring salvation to the gentiles by commandment from the Lord.

13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he (Paul) hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

As the BoM is not some sort of correction or clarifier for the NT and ancient Judaism and christology your point is moot. We're not discussing a 19th century text that is ignorant (no disrespect) of the historical Jesus.

[Dario_M]

I've never heard of Paul. I'm only focussed on Jesus Christ. I have try to watch this video. But it's 57 minutes long. Unfortunatly i don't have that much concentration on the moment. 

Who is Paul? I've read nothing about him in the Book of Mormon. 

[Anakin7]

31 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I've never heard of Paul. I'm only focussed on Jesus Christ. I have try to watch this video. But it's 57 minutes long. Unfortunatly i don't have that much concentration on the moment. 

Who is Paul? I've read nothing about him in the Book of Mormon. 

Try looking for him in Da N.T.

[Dario_M]

12 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

Try looking for him in Da N.T.

Yes but i was hoping that somebody could explain it to me. Because the video is 57 minutes long. And i'm not at home right now on the moment and quite distracted as well. 

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Yes but i was hoping that somebody could explain it to me. Because the video is 57 minutes long. And i'm not at home right now on the moment and quite distracted as well. 

Saul, who became Paul the apostle, was a fierce enemy of Christianity but was converted to Christianity after a vision of Jesus and the Father on the road to Damascus (see Acts 9).  He was not an original apostle but became one after Christ’s death. He played a huge role in bringing Christianity to the rest of the world (gentiles).   He is accredited with writing 13-14 books of the New Testament, depending on which Bible you use. 

Edited May 25, 2023 by pogi

[Hamilton Porter]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

Saul, who became Paul the apostle,

I hear everybody say that (inside and outside the church).

But children in the diaspora usually have a Semitic name and a Greek name. Shaul is his Semitic name and Paulos is his Greek name.

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Hamilton Porter
add "in"

[Saint Bonaventure]

I feel like ringing a bell when I say this, but the scholarly conversation--which isn't the only relevant conversation about these issues--is more complex than the presentation in this video. Ehrman, no doubt, is aware of this, but as others may not be, I'm sharing a brief excerpt from a recent, respected work in Pauline studies, a work published by a press of renown.  It begins by summarizing three contemporary approaches to Paul's Judaism, and then puts forward a fourth approach. The emphasis at the end of the quote is mine:

Quote

 

Over the course of the last century, New Testament scholars have come to a consensus about the historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, and that he cannot be properly understood apart from first-century Judaism. The same conclusion has been reached by scholars who study the apostle Paul. No serious exegete disputes the notion that Paul was profoundly formed by the Judaism of his day, the period in Jewish history typically referred to as the “Second Temple” era. Paul himself makes his Jewish heritage clear. For example, in Galatians, Paul writes, “We ourselves are Jews [Ioudaioi] by birth” (Gal 2:15). Yet when it comes to Paul’s relationship with Judaism after his transformation from persecutor of the church to apostle of Christ, things are not so simple. What kind of Jew was the apostle Paul? On this point, scholars are divided. As Douglas Campbell rightly notes, “Debate over Paul’s relationship with Judaism, and especially over his view of the law, has dominated discussion of the apostle for the last quarter century.”

In this chapter, we will begin our study of Pauline theology by attempting to situate it within the context of first-century Judaism. As we will see, when it comes to the question of how best to describe Paul’s relationship to Judaism, contemporary scholarship can be broadly categorized according to three major approaches: (1) Paul the “former Jew”; (2) Paul the “eschatological Jew”; and (3) Paul the “torah-observant Jew.” To these we will propose a fourth option: (4) Paul the “new covenant Jew.” We will make the case that this category of “new covenant Jew” is the most helpful way to locate Paul within the wider and complex world of first-century Judaism. As we hope to show, exploring the question “What kind of Jew was Paul?” is extremely important for understanding his overall theology. How one thinks about the apostle’s relationship to Judaism will have a direct impact on how one answers other questions about his eschatology, Christology, soteriology, and so on.

Brant Pitre, Michael P. Barber, and John A. Kincaid, Paul, a New Covenant Jew: Rethinking Pauline Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2019), 11–12.

 

 

[Hamilton Porter]

2 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I feel like ringing a bell when I say this, but the scholarly conversation--which isn't the only relevant conversation about these issues--is more complex than the presentation in this video. Ehrman, no doubt, is aware of this, but as others may not be, I'm sharing a brief excerpt from a recent, respected work in Pauline studies, a work published by a press of renown.  It begins by summarizing three contemporary approaches to Paul's Judaism, and then puts forward a fourth approach. The emphasis at the end of the quote is mine:

 

Thanks for that excerpt. I hope the people in this thread are just bouncing his ideas around and not swallowing whatever Ehrman says mindlessly, especially since he has a pathologically ignorant media following him around.

Personally, I've never found Paul's works to be my favorites (except Ephesians and Colossians, which most scholars don't believe he wrote). So I haven't studied him in depth.

[Pyreaux]

I feel Paul is a huge promoter of The Higher Law of Christ as spoken on the Sermon on the Mount, the royal priesthood and the initiation rituals that Christ partook in himself. Paul's mission to the Gentiles flavored his writing as well as variant Judizers.

[InCognitus]

I like Paul.  But I didn't always like him, and in the past I avoided his writings.  That bothered me, so for a few years back in the mid 2000s, I listened to only the book of Acts and Paul's epistles during my travels and commutes to client offices (over and over), and I started to notice themes in his epistles and repeated phrases that stood out to me.  I started keeping track of some common phrases in his writings and that led me to noticed a really cool chiasmus in Galatians 5 and 6 that totally changed the way I looked at Paul's writings.

I watched the video in the opening post this morning, and while I like Bart Ehrman and respect his work (but not some of his conclusions), I think he misses what Jesus is really teaching in the story of the rich young man when he claim that this sums up Jesus' teachings about salvation as compared to Paul's focus on the cross and resurrection as the means of salvation.  I also think that's a rather simplistic view of Paul's teachings on salvation (and the center of the chiasmus in Galatians 5 and 6 shows this in my opinion).  I know there's a lot more to Bart's argument than can be told in that short video, so I probably shouldn't judge him on that video alone.  But based on that video alone, I think he misses the heart of both of their teachings.

Edit to add:   I've posted this on the board previously, but this is the chiasmus in Galatians 5 and 6 I was referring to:

Edited May 26, 2023 by InCognitus

[Damien the Leper]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I feel Paul is a huge promoter of The Higher Law of Christ as spoken on the Sermon on the Mount, the royal priesthood and the initiation rituals that Christ partook in himself. Paul's mission to the Gentiles flavored his writing as well as variant Judizers.

Paul was unfamiliar with Matthew's gospel as it was written later than Paul's earliest letter 1 Thessalonians.

[Damien the Leper]

6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I like Paul.  But I didn't always like him, and in the past I avoided his writings.  That bothered me, so for a few years back in the mid 2000s, I listened to only the book of Acts and Paul's epistles during my travels and commutes to client offices (over and over), and I started to notice themes in his epistles and repeated phrases that stood out to me.  I started keeping track of some common phrases in his writings and that led me to noticed a really cool chiasmus in Galatians 5 and 6 that totally changed the way I looked at Paul's writings.

I watched the video in the opening post this morning, and while I like Bart Ehrman and respect his work (but not some of his conclusions), I think he misses what Jesus is really teaching in the story of the rich young man when he claim that this sums up Jesus' teachings about salvation as compared to Paul's focus on the cross and resurrection as the means of salvation.  I also think that's a rather simplistic view of Paul's teachings on salvation (and the center of the chiasmus in Galatians 5 and 6 shows this in my opinion).  I know there's a lot more to Bart's argument than can be told in that short video, so I probably shouldn't judge him on that video alone.  But based on that video alone, I think he misses the heart of both of their teachings.

Edit to add:   I've posted this on the board previously, but this is the chiasmus in Galatians 5 and 6 I was referring to:

Ehrman is discussing history. Theology is a separate subject.

[Hamilton Porter]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I like Paul.  But I didn't always like him, and in the past I avoided his writings

Nietzsche said, everything Paul wrote was a power grab.

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Paul was unfamiliar with Matthew's gospel as it was written later than Paul's earliest letter 1 Thessalonians.

That maybe, perhaps he read the Epistle of James, it seems pre-Acts 10, and makes over 20 references to the Sermon. Several of Paul letters clearly references the Sermon on the Mount. Not fully or verbatim, yet clearly referencing it. Every time he says one of his variant titles for it, the "spiritual law" etc., and he explains what he means, such as not giving evil for evil, he's conveying a part of the sermon, as juxtaposed to Mosaic Law. Every time he condemns the Mosaic law all has to do with a new law that has superseded it as the backdrop. Paul describes two laws, the law of Moses the Christian has been set free from; yet, he affirms that only “the doers of the law will be justified,” yet declares that all who are in Christ have “died to the law.” To Paul there is another law that is “spiritual", and other terms under the term "law" he no longer intends the Law of Moses, but a higher and spiritual law, of which came from Christ, the new lawgiver.

Edited May 26, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Dario_M]

On 5/25/2023 at 2:52 PM, pogi said:

Saul, who became Paul the apostle, was a fierce enemy of Christianity but was converted to Christianity after a vision of Jesus and the Father on the road to Damascus (see Acts 9).  He was not an original apostle but became one after Christ’s death. He played a huge role in bringing Christianity to the rest of the world (gentiles).   He is accredited with writing 13-14 books of the New Testament, depending on which Bible you use. 

Thank you so much. Now it's way more clear for me. Sorry that i was so lazy yesterday. 😩

[InCognitus]

5 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Ehrman is discussing history. Theology is a separate subject.

I realize Ehrman is supposed to be discussing what Paul knew about Jesus, but the topic discussed at the 23:40 minute mark of the video is how one attains salvation and the difference between Jesus and Paul's teachings on salvation.   Ehrman says that Paul teaches that the only way to have salvation is to trust in Christ's death and resurrection.  But he contrasts that with Jesus and the story of the rich young man in Mark 10, where Ehrman says Jesus focuses on keeping the commandments perfectly to be saved, and then giving all your riches away to the poor in order to have treasures in heaven.  It was very much a topic of that video.  And I don't think that's a fair assessment of either one of their teachings. 

Edited May 26, 2023 by InCognitus

[Pyreaux]

Paul also teaches how works are accounted for rewards, just like the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:20; 16:27 = 1 Corinthians 4:5 2 Corinthians 5:10). Paul taught three degrees of resurrected glory, as Christ taught three degrees of fruitfulness (Matthew 13:8; Mark 4:20 = 1 Corinthians 15:4; 12 Corinthians 3:18).

Edited May 26, 2023 by Pyreaux