Christianity without Paul

[Muffled]

I think without Paul it would like be much more like Islam and that you finally work for heaven instead of believing your saved by faith only.

Ps: People wouldn't to belief that jesus(p) died on the cross it wouldn't be necessary

That is highly unlikely. Paul wasn't the only person who was filled with the Holy Spirit.

You are only deluding yourself.

 

[Muffled]

This is an extremely common view of the faith vs works by the anti-works crowd that I've encountered countless times.

So when Jesus said one must work hard to enter the kingdom, what he should have said was "You will work hard once you enter the kingdom".

So who were the Luke warm in Revelation, in this view? It specifically says that the Luke warm are those who don't do enough good acts, and they are spat out. Looks like that shoots this case down.

And then there's James who says that such faith does NOT save.

So then, what kind of "good works" would a Christian do, in this view, that a member of any religion would NOT do? What kind of good works do these "Enlightened Children of G-d" do in the first place?

Are you viewing all people who believe in grace as anti-works? That is far from the truth. If a person isn't under grace, he needs to do works. There is nothing wrong with that provided it can be done. However historically very few achieve good wroks.

There is no such statement of Jesus. Jesus did say that the Kingdom must be received. ie It is a gift of God's grace.

En Contrare! The text does not say that they didn't work only that there were no works. If grace were working there would be works but it appears that niether grace nor work was happening.

That is not what James says. He says if there are no works then the person was not displaying real faith. Real faith produces works by the grace of God. He isn't saying that faith doesn't work only that it should work and if there is no evidence of it working then it is a dead faith not a living faith. So James goes on to say: I can show proof of my faith by my works not that he is working hard to produce works.
However works do not save as Jesus makes plain in this verse: Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

A member of any other religion would not do what God says but only what they think He says.

 

[obi one]

Are you viewing all people who believe in grace as anti-works? That is far from the truth. If a person isn't under grace, he needs to do works. There is nothing wrong with that provided it can be done. However historically very few achieve good wroks.

There is no such statement of Jesus. Jesus did say that the Kingdom must be received. ie It is a gift of God's grace.

En Contrare! The text does not say that they didn't work only that there were no works. If grace were working there would be works but it appears that niether grace nor work was happening.

That is not what James says. He says if there are no works then the person was not displaying real faith. Real faith produces works by the grace of God. He isn't saying that faith doesn't work only that it should work and if there is no evidence of it working then it is a dead faith not a living faith. So James goes on to say: I can show proof of my faith by my works not that he is working hard to produce works.
However works do not save as Jesus makes plain in this verse: Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

A member of any other religion would not do what God says but only what they think He says.

Mt 7:15-24 was about false prophets, who come as sheep clothing but are "ravenous" wolves. This pertains to Paul as Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, whose blessing from his father was to be as a "ravenous wolf" (Gen 49:27). You would be able to know the false prophets by their fruit of their tree. The fruit of the followers of Paul, have not been particular good. The fruit of the Roman church has been child abuse, bank fraud, selling of indulgences, inquisition, institutionalizing pagan gods, etc. As for calling out "Lord, Lord", that sounds like Paul in Roman 10:13. The same goes for the supposed miracles, and self declaration of being a prophet, from which the church gives credence to Paul.

 

[Shermana]

Are you viewing all people who believe in grace as anti-works? That is far from the truth.

Your counter-rebuttal is to tell me that those not under Grace are the ones who need to do works, implicating that those under grace don't need to. I think you've added weight to this common view.

If a person isn't under grace, he needs to do works. There is nothing wrong with that provided it can be done. However historically very few achieve good wroks.

Can you give some examples of these historically "very few" who achieve good works and say what kind of good works they do? If you think only people not under grace need to do good works, are you saying those "under grace" are exempt? Who is under grace and who isn't Does it matter what denomination you are?

There is no such statement of Jesus. Jesus did say that the Kingdom must be received. ie It is a gift of God's grace.

Jesus said it must be worked for, "strived" for. He clearly said that it was a matter of doing right. Please quote where he says it is to be received as a gift. Even Paul relates it to a race that one must try to win.

En Contrare! The text does not say that they didn't work only that there were no works. If grace were working there would be works but it appears that niether grace nor work was happening.

Where does the text say there no works? Explain what exactly the process is for "grace to work", why does grace not work for many who claim to have it apparently? Do they not believe hard enough or something?

That is not what James says. He says if there are no works then the person was not displaying real faith.

Therefore, works are necessary to have true, living saving faith. James said that faith without works does not save. Therefore, "Christians" who have no works are thus not truly saved by this logic. But what are "works"?

Real faith produces works by the grace of God.

What kinds of works specifically? I have often have difficulty when asking those of your mindset to explain what kinds of specific works the grace provokes one to do.

He isn't saying that faith doesn't work only that it should work and if there is no evidence of it working then it is a dead faith not a living faith.

Do you not believe that works are done out of the heart and by one's personal motivation? Do you think only those with grace will do good works? What kinds of works exactly? What about those of other religions who also do works out of their own pure motivation?

So James goes on to say: I can show proof of my faith by my works not that he is working hard to produce works.

What kinds of works do you think James had to show proof of his works, and what kind of "Working hard" was being done? What did Jesus mean by "Strive" for the narrow gate?

However works do not save as Jesus makes plain in this verse: Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?

First off, you don't seem to understand what "mighty works" here means, it's referring to miracles and such, not just "good works", a "mighty" work is conveying the idea of a miracle.

Second off, You are missing out the point of what Jesus says here. He calls them those that "work lawlessness" ("iniquity" here is "Anomian" or "Those against the Law"), Jesus was saying that there will be many who work so-called miracles but aren't doing it from his name and power, who are apart from the Law.

Third off, my interpretation is the opposite of yours here, Jesus is rejecting those who think they're saved because they call him "Lord", even having a supposed miracle or two under their belt, but have rejected obedience to the Law. (The word "iniquity" should only be read as "lawlessness").

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Also, if you look at the context of Chapter 7 and the preceding verses, it's clear that Jesus is referring to those who deny his actual teachings and commandments while claiming to perform "miracles".

A member of any other religion would not do what God says but only what they think He says.

And explain the differences between doing what G-d says and how another religion might do works according to your view of what "works are".

Let's see if we can establish what kind of "works" are even in question here.

 

[jtartar]

What would the "Christian" religion be without Paul's epistles?

Shermana,
It is a fact that Paul was the greatest evangelizer, except for Jesus, himself. Even though Paul speaks of himself as the least of all the Holy Ones, the fact is that Jesus revealed to Paul all the Sacred Secrets, or Mysteries of Chriatianity. All the other apostles seemed to have learned from, about the things that Jesus revealed to him, Gal 1:11,12, 2:6-9, 2Pet 3:15,16, 2Cor 12:6,7, Rom 16:25, Acts 9:15,16, 19:11-17.
For over 1,500 years the Jews lived under The Mosaic Law Covenant. With the coming of Jesus that started to change, and with Jesus death the Mosaic Law Covenant ended, Col 2:13,14, Heb 8:6-13, 7:11-14, 2Cor 3:4-11.
At Pentecost of 33CE the Christian Congregation began. This was symbolyzed by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, which gave many of the disciples very powerful gifts, Acts 2:1-4, 14-21. Paul seemed to have received more gifts than any other disciple.
Even as great as Paul was, God is far greater, and could have gotten His message spread by any means that He wanted to. God needs NO MAN, but it pleases Him to use His faithful servants, just as it did to use His Only Begotten son, John 1:15-18, 3:16,17, Matt 20:28, Acts 3:13,26.

 

[Shermana]

It is a fact that Paul was the greatest evangelizer,

Define "Greatest". Do you mean reached out to the most? I'll bet there were American missionaries who technically reached more people. Do you mean the farthest reach? Perhaps Thomas in India reached more people with a wider range. As for as doctrine is concerned.....

except for Jesus, himself. Even though Paul speaks of himself as the least of all the Holy Ones, the fact is that Jesus revealed to Paul all the Sacred Secrets, or Mysteries of Chriatianity. All the other apostles seemed to have learned from, about the things that Jesus revealed to him, Gal 1:11,12, 2:6-9, 2Pet 3:15,16, 2Cor 12:6,7, Rom 16:25, Acts 9:15,16, 19:11-17.

I'm assuming you believe that Paul's epistles are the proof themselves that Jesus himself taught him the same secrets and doctrines he taught his disciples?

For over 1,500 years the Jews lived under The Mosaic Law Covenant. With the coming of Jesus that started to change, and with Jesus death the Mosaic Law Covenant ended, Col 2:13,14, Heb 8:6-13, 7:11-14, 2Cor 3:4-11.

The New Covenant in Jeremiah says that the Law will be written on the hearts of the believers. It doesn't abrogate the Law. I appreciate your attempt to repeat the same antinomian "Christian" theology I hear over and over, but hopefully you can realize that using Paul's epistles themselves to justify Pauline doctrine trumping Matthean doesn't work. And that's part of the debate: Do Paul's Epistles trump what Jesus says directly? Jesus teaches total obedience to the Mosaic Law. Then Paul comes in and totally contradicts him. Note that Paul probably wasn't familiar with the Gospel writings.

I'm assuming you think God was not telling the truth when he said the statutes and commandments would be for all generations to the thousandth?

At Pentecost of 33CE the Christian Congregation began. This was symbolyzed by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, which gave many of the disciples very powerful gifts, Acts 2:1-4, 14-21. Paul seemed to have received more gifts than any other disciple.
Even as great as Paul was, God is far greater, and could have gotten His message spread by any means that He wanted to. God needs NO MAN, but it pleases Him to use His faithful servants, just as it did to use His Only Begotten son, John 1:15-18, 3:16,17, Matt 20:28, Acts 3:13,26.

Thanks for telling me that God is greater than Paul, but the way you make it sound, you think he was a tough contender. As for Paul receiving lots of gifts, how do we know? What gifts did Paul receive that were greater than those who were able to speak languages they'd never spoken before? Prophecy? There were other prophets.

 

[sojourner]

Paul is a valuable source in knowing how one particular branch began, the Nazarenes and Ebionites from what is written, were in bitter opposition to him. Additionally, several of the epistles traditionally attributed to him are being exposed as psuedipigrapha, such as the Pastorals which even the Syrian Orthodox church discluded from Canon back in the day.

I'm not assuming Paul didn't write what he wrote, but there are minority opinions, including those like Edgar Goodspeed, who say Corinthians is a compilation of other writings, and some even say he may have not written Galatians, but that's another story.

So when you say "something very different", that's exactly what I'm saying, going by the Gospels alone (including the fragments of things like Gospel to the Hebrews/Nazoreans), we have a "very different" religion. We have "Jewish Christianity".

Not necessarily. We have a less comprehensive Christianity. What we see in the gospels represents a kind of sub-cultural shift from a rural mind set to an urban mind set. Paul joined the group at Antioch. That means that the group at Antioch has, within two years, shifted from a rural, Galilean Jesus to a more urbanized viewpoint of him. The way I've read the Ebionite and Hebrews stuff represents a decidedly rural Jesus. This dictates the way in which Jesus is presented and interpreted.

 

[Shermana]

Not necessarily. We have a less comprehensive Christianity. What we see in the gospels represents a kind of sub-cultural shift from a rural mind set to an urban mind set. Paul joined the group at Antioch. That means that the group at Antioch has, within two years, shifted from a rural, Galilean Jesus to a more urbanized viewpoint of him. The way I've read the Ebionite and Hebrews stuff represents a decidedly rural Jesus. This dictates the way in which Jesus is presented and interpreted.

What is an "urban" mindset? Do you mean "Syncrenized" by "Urban"? If anything, the Gospels paint quite the opposite picture. It's the book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles if anything that go more "urban". How is a commandment to avoid the world and to not be a friend of the world anything close to "urban"?

 

[sojourner]

What is an "urban" mindset? Do you mean "Syncrenized" by "Urban"? If anything, the Gospels paint quite the opposite picture. It's the book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles if anything that go more "urban". How is a commandment to avoid the world and to not be a friend of the world anything close to "urban"?

Reference your quote.
No, I don't mean "syncretized" by "urban." It has more to do with politics and with how Jesus is characterized.