Jesus-ian vs. Paulian Christianity

[rumborak]

This topic has been skirted here and there, but the more I learn about the history of Christianity, the more it becomes apparent (to me) the stark difference between the "Christianity" taught by Jesus, i.e. the somewhat apocalyptic vision of the imminent Kingdom, and the complete rejection of any belongings and social connections (Luke 14:25-27, Luke 9:59-60).
Compare that to Paulian Christianity, i.e. the Christianity one could say people actually follow today. Nobody is selling their belongings or leaving their relatives unburied to be a Christian.

As an outside observer it strikes me as Paulian Christianity having very little to do with Jesus' "Christianity". Given that (I would think) Jesus has authority over Paul in all matters, doesn't that mean to be a proper follower of Jesus, one must draw the same conclusion as the monks over the ages, who took those passages to mean to sever all connection to the outside world?

rumborak

[Adami]

I'm pretty sure most people here know my views of Paul. If I had my way, all of his works would be removed from the bible.

I think christianity would be a much more.....pleasant....religion without his teachings.

[Vivace]

I know quite a few people with the same attitude about Paul and his writings and that he seemed rather brash, harsh and rough around the edges. But all in all, his writings are beautiful to say the least, chock full of images. I think though that a lot of people seem to read into the Christ vs Paul a bit too much and I don't agree with the idea that Pauline Christianity is in conflict with Christ's teachings but maybe people are seeing things I that I don't see as of yet. Christ's teachings on entering the Kingdom are pretty straight-forward actually: you can't serve two masters. That is you can't serve money and God at the same time. This doesn't mean that you must give up money 100%. Christ most certainly didn't give up money 100%, he just was never controlled by it and he gave away what was superflious. Monastic communites have money, friaries have money, it's necessary for the survival of the community. But to be under the control of money, possessions, human material goods, was seen as an obstacle to heaven and still is seen that way. Again, you cannot serve two masters. You either follow money or you follow God and Christ pointed out to his apostles how powerful the call to riches and power was. Paul was pretty consistant on this teaching as well. The argument is not for the total and absolute abandonment of what is necessary for you to survive, the idea is that you are not to be controlled by it and put your faith into it rather place your faith in God. The jewish Priests were controlled by money and power and their faith was certainly driven by their wealth and Christ was most certainly attacking their lifestyle concerning it.

To read Paul without reading Christ I believe you end up with fringe groups. To read Christ without Paul I think doesn't give you a more human element to Christ's teachings and therefore we wouldn't have the knowledge we have know. Paul might be a hard man, but what he gave us is certainly something we cannot do without, but I agree in that we have too many people who just take Paul and not bother to take Christ. This is how we get people like Fred Phelps, Terry Jones, etc.

[bosk1]

I have to agree with most of what Vivace said.  Let's not forget that Paul led a lifestyle very much like Jesus' where he traveled around with little money beyond what he needed for the bare necessities, and that he also wrote that "the love of money is the root of all evil." 

Also, to try to limit Jesus' teaching only to focusing on the imminent coming of the kingdom and not on Christian living is missing a lot of what he taught.  Yes, there was a lot of emphasis on the coming of the kingdom.  But he also taught considerably on how to live once the kingdom came, and he taught that his apostles would have the job of continuing to teach how to live once the kingdom came, which is exactly what is recorded in Acts and the N.T. epistles. 

In my opinion (and it is strictly opinion, since we are not told definitively in the text, although I believe there is more than ample indirect evidence to support this position), another aspect of the money issue in addition to what Vivace mentioned above was the historic reality of what would happen in Jerusalem immediately after the arrival of the kingdom:  namely, there would be a large concentration of new disciples staying there for extended periods of time who actually lived somewhere else.  As a result, there was not enough food, etc., to take care of everyone, which is why we see in the first 5 or so chapters of Acts people selling their possessions and donating the proceeds.  And apparently, this continued, because later in Acts and in many of Paul's letters, Paul is recorded as taking up a collection from churches in other areas to take care of the Christians in Jerusalem.  I think this also very likely factored into what Jesus was teaching on not loving money and of repeatedly during his life giving the example of giving to the poor.  There was about to be a very large-scale, immediate need for a lot of people to have to do so.

[Ħ]

Bosk, quick question on your post.  Even though it's slightly off topic, I don't think it has any legs to be it's own topic.

So...Jesus was teaching Israel based on the imminent coming of the kingdom.  Was this a literal coming of the kingdom or a spiritual thing, as most Christians teach?

And if literal, then it isn't here yet....so why wouldn't Paul teach the coming of the kingdom as well?

Sorry for the brief aside.

[Adami]

Bosk, quick question on your post.  Even though it's slightly off topic, I don't think it has any legs to be it's own topic.

So...Jesus was teaching Israel based on the imminent coming of the kingdom.  Was this a literal coming of the kingdom or a spiritual thing, as most Christians teach?

And if literal, then it isn't here yet....so why wouldn't Paul teach the coming of the kingdom as well?

Sorry for the brief aside.

As far as I know, a lot of non christians see it as literal and christians generally see it as spiritual.

[Ħ]

Bosk, quick question on your post.  Even though it's slightly off topic, I don't think it has any legs to be it's own topic.

So...Jesus was teaching Israel based on the imminent coming of the kingdom.  Was this a literal coming of the kingdom or a spiritual thing, as most Christians teach?

And if literal, then it isn't here yet....so why wouldn't Paul teach the coming of the kingdom as well?

Sorry for the brief aside.

As far as I know, a lot of non christians see it as literal and christians generally see it as spiritual.

Ya, I'm aware.  But it just seems kinda weird, since it seems like the kingdom will begin at the second coming, the way Jesus makes it sound.  Plus, you've got the promise of "The Promised Land" to Abraham, which Israel is supposed to occupy forever, and that hasn't occured yet.

But I know that lots of Christians say that we ourselves are supposed to "spread the kingdom."  Whatever that means.

It's a confusing issue.

[rumborak]

This doesn't mean that you must give up money 100%. Christ most certainly didn't give up money 100%

Absolutely he does, and absolutely he did.
In combination with the two passages I quoted above, take Matthew 19:21:

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Jesus essentially owned nothing, and when wandering around relied on the gifts of the families and houses he stayed at.

I don't want to focus so much on Paul than raise the interesting point that Christians today almost fulfill none of the requirements for heaven as laid out by Jesus. They don't reject their families, they don't sell their belongings, in fact they were the ones who came up with Capitalism, which cherishes private property above all else!
The reason I brought up Paul is because he kinda invented Christianity 2.0, which reinterpreted a lot of Jesus' statements to allow for all the things Christians do today.

rumborak

[bosk1]

@BrotherH:

The kingdom has definitely come.  Jesus said it would happen during the lifetime of the people he was preaching to.  And look at some of the things he said about it:

20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!'[a] For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

It is definitely something that is spiritual.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

The kingdom is in fact the Church.  But it gets a bit confusing because it is clear that before Jesus' death, many of his disciples and others thought the kingdom was in fact going to be an earthly kingdom where the Jews essentially threw out the Romans and had a kingdom on earth.  Deep subject, but I don't think it is as comlicated as people make it out to be.

[rumborak]

many of his disciples and others thought the kingdom was in fact going to be an earthly kingdom where the Jews essentially threw out the Romans and had a kingdom on earth.

Wouldn't you think the disciples who were there have the superior understanding of what Jesus taught or meant? That is, isn't it a bit convenient to disparage the opinion of several disciples who understood Jesus' teaching as the imminent Kingdom to come, and instead fully bank on someone who of his own account wasn't an eyewitness? I know you've banked your life on this interpretation, but you must admit that is pretty much "selective reason".

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

The kingdom is in fact the Church.

I don't get that at all.

[Ħ]

Ya I don't really get that either.  Although I do see how the spirituality element of the kingdom is demonstrated by Lk 16.  However, why did Christ tell that to the Pharisees?  You would think that if the spirituality of the kingdom was important, he would have stressed it elsewhere.

Sorry for being argumentative--I'd do the same if you claimed the kingdom was literal--but I really like to get as much information as possible in issues concerning the faith.

[Vivace]

This doesn't mean that you must give up money 100%. Christ most certainly didn't give up money 100%

Absolutely he does, and absolutely he did.
In combination with the two passages I quoted above, take Matthew 19:21:

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Jesus essentially owned nothing, and when wandering around relied on the gifts of the families and houses he stayed at.

Christ directly did not have money yes, but indirectly his disciples did carry money for what needed for their basic survival. this is proven through the passage where one of the disciples tells Christ about paying the temple tax to which Christ states, "Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's" This is a clear cut example of Monastism, in that none of the apostles nor Christ had any possessions of their own, nor had money of their own. However as a community they had what they needed to survive as was esstential to the ministry while the rest was given to the poor or was rendered to those who demanded it from them. Christ's message with the Rich young man was illustrating the idea that the rich young man served money and not God and in order to be perfect one must give up service to money and start to serve God. This is the idea of the parable, "It is impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom". This is because they serve money and not God. And when the Apostles questioned him on this, "then who can be saved?", the response was quite simple, "Only God can save", ergo, place your faith in God alone for only God can save. Monks and Friars own nothing. They have money, per say, but it's the communities money, not their own. They have possessions, but it's the communities possessions and not their own. And often times communities can start to serve money by gathering many possessions that are not essential to their ministry. So yes, the lesson here is to not have personal possessions that tie you down so that you are free to evangelize the Kingdom, but Christ and his apostles most certainly had money as a community and probably a few possessions like a bag with food, a few blankets or whatever was given to them for their need.

Also the Kingdom of God is that what the Catholic Church practices in an imperfect form as setup by Christ with Peter as the Rock. Perfection out of Imperfection. We can never have the perfect Kindgom here, but we can try to practice it in our own limited way.

[bosk1]

many of his disciples and others thought the kingdom was in fact going to be an earthly kingdom where the Jews essentially threw out the Romans and had a kingdom on earth.

Wouldn't you think the disciples who were there have the superior understanding of what Jesus taught or meant?...

Yes.  And as you read through Acts (which I know you have), you see that after Jesus' resurrection and ascention, they finally got it and were no longer confused. 

The kingdom is in fact the Church.

I don't get that at all.

Ya I don't really get that either.  Although I do see how the spirituality element of the kingdom is demonstrated by Lk 16.  However, why did Christ tell that to the Pharisees?  You would think that if the spirituality of the kingdom was important, he would have stressed it elsewhere.

Sorry for being argumentative--I'd do the same if you claimed the kingdom was literal--but I really like to get as much information as possible in issues concerning the faith.

Okay.  So by the time Jesus has ascended and his disciples are teaching, the kingdom is no longer spoken of in future tense, but is referred to throughout the NT in the present tense.  For example:  "He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love."  (Col 1:13)

Backing up, notice that Jesus uses the terms "kingdom" and "church" interchangeably.  In Matthew 16:18, 19, Jesus promised to build His "church" and give Peter the keys of the "kingdom." This makes sense only if both terms refer to the same thing.

A similar passage in terms of using the two terms in a parallel way is in Hebrews 12.  Notice the parallel statements. In vv 18-24, we are not come to the old law but unto the church (vv 22,23). In vv 25-29, since the old law was removed, we are receiving a kingdom in which we should serve faithfully (v28).  "Coming unto the church" = "receiving the kingdom." Both the church and kingdom existed, and to receive one is to receive the other.

[hefdaddy42]

In Matthew 16:18, 19, Jesus promised to build His "church" and give Peter the keys of the "kingdom." This makes sense only if both terms refer to the same thing.

Not true.

A similar passage in terms of using the two terms in a parallel way is in Hebrews 12.  Notice the parallel statements. In vv 18-24, we are not come to the old law but unto the church (vv 22,23). In vv 25-29, since the old law was removed, we are receiving a kingdom in which we should serve faithfully (v28).  "Coming unto the church" = "receiving the kingdom." Both the church and kingdom existed, and to receive one is to receive the other.

Again, I don't see a reason that they should mean the same thing. 

The word translated as "kingdom" in the gospels doesn't really mean kingdom.  It rather means something more like the kingness or the rule of God.  It isn't talking about a place that God rules, but how things would be if God did rule.  That is not the same as a particular organization or group of people like the Church.

[Ħ]

I did a quick concordance of the word "kingdom" twice, once from the mindset that the kingdom is literal, and another from the mindset that it is spiritual.  Both times, I didn't really run into any problem--both make sense.  If the kingdom is here, then it must be spiritual.  If it isn't, then it is literal.  Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of verses indicate that the kingdom comes at the second coming, which of course hasn't happened yet.

Not to mention the kingdom verses in Dan 2, which display the gradual transition of the kingdoms as such: Babylon -> Media-Persia -> Greece -> Rome -> Christ's kingdom.  Since the four prior kingdoms were literal kingdoms, it follows that Christ's would also be spiritual.  But, Rome is now gone, and there is no literal reign of Christ today.

I are confused.  I've attended churches that teach both, and it seems that whatever approach you take to the issue of the kingdom, is the answer that you'll come to.

[hefdaddy42]

I don't think the Kingdom movement taught by Jesus and reflected in the Synoptic Gospels has anything whatsoever to do with Daniel.

[Ħ]

I would disagree, because Daniel is where Jesus gets his title "Son of man."

[rumborak]

This is a clear cut example of Monastism, in that none of the apostles nor Christ had any possessions of their own, nor had money of their own. However as a community they had what they needed to survive as was esstential to the ministry while the rest was given to the poor or was rendered to those who demanded it from them. Christ's message with the Rich young man was illustrating the idea that the rich young man served money and not God and in order to be perfect one must give up service to money and start to serve God. This is the idea of the parable, "It is impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom". This is because they serve money and not God.

Here's the rub: Look at the definition of "rich" in 30AD Roman Empire. And now look at your own wealth. You are far beyond of what Jesus considered rich. Again, living in a capitalist society and embracing it is almost the definition of "loving money". You can fool yourself into thinking "well, I don't really LOVE it, so I'm good", but if I would venture a guess, Jesus would have applied his sentence to you too.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I would disagree, because Daniel is where Jesus gets his title "Son of man."

Even if that's true, it doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

[Ħ]

I would disagree, because Daniel is where Jesus gets his title "Son of man."

Even if that's true, it doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

Assuming that you believe that Jesus came to fulfill the OT prophecies, which I'm not actually sure if you do,  Dan 7:13-14 talks about how the Son of man will come to set up his kingdom.  Cross reference that with pretty much the entire book of Daniel, specifically Dan 2:37-45, and you've got a picture of the Messiah overthrowing Rome to establish his own kingdom.  I am sure that Daniel is one of the key books in Jesus's mind as he preached the coming of the kingdom.

Then again, you might not agree.  Are you of the mindset that Daniel is inauthentic, written centuries after it claims to be?

[hefdaddy42]

Assuming that you believe that Jesus came to fulfill the OT prophecies, which I'm not actually sure if you do

I don't.

Are you of the mindset that Daniel is inauthentic, written centuries after it claims to be?

I wouldn't call it a "mindset."  I would call it a conclusion based on lots of reading and study.  But yes, I think that Daniel is written later than it claims.  But that doesn't really matter, because I believe that the concepts you are talking about, of a "Son of Man" coming on the clouds of heaven at the eschaton, were fairly well-known in Jesus's day, so he would most likely have been familiar with them, and I think he clearly uses the term in that meaning numerous times in the Synoptic Gospels.

But that still doesn't mean that when Jesus says "kingdom" in the phrase "kingdom of God" that he means the same thing that "Daniel" means when he uses the term "Daniel," which is the only thing I'm really discussing here.

[bosk1]

The word translated as "kingdom" in the gospels doesn't really mean kingdom.  It rather means something more like the kingness or the rule of God. 

How is what you describe in your second sentence not a kingdom?  I think you pretty much gave the text book definition.

And, again, before Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, the kingdom is described in future tense and is described as being very near ("at hand," being a term that is often used).  Immediately afterward, it is described in the present tense.  And unless you are talking about heaven, where else would you find the "kingness or the rule of God" than in the body of believers (aka, the Church)?  It can't be heaven, or else it would not have been referred to in the future tense before Jesus' death.  Aside from the passages suggesting that it must be the Church, I don't see anything else it possibly could be referring to.

[hefdaddy42]

It doesn't refer to a place or a specified boundary or even a specificed group of people.  It is more like a state of being.  "The kingdom of God is like this: ..." (Parable X) 

I don't see how it could possibly be interpreted as being the Church.

[Ħ]

I do see what you're saying, bosk, and a kingdom = church interpretation fits many verses, but what do you do with the promises of the eternal physical land to Abraham and his seed, as well as Israel's eternal dominion over the rest of the nations?  That stuff is more easily accounted for in a literal interpretation of a kingdom.  Not to mention all of the other first coming prophecies of Christ came to pass literally, so it follows that ought to interpret the kingdom literally as well.

Also, if the kingdom is allegorical, than Christ really is king over just the believers, and not the entire earth as Zec 14:9 indicates.  Not to mention that Satan is still considered the god of this world even after the church is established (2 Cor 4:4).

I'm actually attending a couple different ministries, and I get to see both sides of this.  It's just fortunate that it's coinciding with this thread's discussion. 

[Philawallafox]

Guys, when you remove bits and pieces of the bible as you please you end up with a religion that isn't following Christ so much as yourself.

[hefdaddy42]

Guys, when you remove bits and pieces of the bible as you please you end up with a religion that isn't following Christ so much as yourself.

No one removed anything.  And it certainly isn't as any of us please.

Please, no more whitewashing of other people's viewpoints.

[rumborak]

Guys, when you remove bits and pieces of the bible as you please you end up with a religion that isn't following Christ so much as yourself.

Yeah, but your current religion has already undergone those changes by people who lived hundreds of years ago. What you have in front of you and consider the "true Bible" is a result of many people's "personal inspiration". How else can you look at John and say his gospel was simply "a slightly different viewpoint"? He added stuff left and right to get his personal theology across. Same with Paul; what he purported as the "actual interpretation of Jesus' sayings" has quite little to do with Jesus' sayings really. Look at this whole "err, the Kingdom is the church!" stuff. People are stretched to the max to bring Paul's interpretation and Jesus' sayings into harmony, and more often than not it fails.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Because one does not understand an argument does not mean the argument fails.

[Ħ]

As fundamentalist as I am, I find that rumborak's point is extremely valid.  Sometimes it takes an outsider to get those inside to see the big picture.  It is troubling, I'll admit, that Jesus endeavors to uphold the law while Paul basically says we aren't under the law.

[bosk1]

As fundamentalist as I am, I find that rumborak's point is extremely valid.  Sometimes it takes an outsider to get those inside to see the big picture.  It is troubling, I'll admit, that Jesus endeavors to uphold the law while Paul basically says we aren't under the law.

How so?  Jesus was a Jew and, consequently, was under the law.  Until his death, the law had not been fulfilled.  Once he did, it had, hence there being no more reason for it.

And note that Paul never says Christians are not under law; he says we are not under the Law (i.e. Mosaic law).

[Ħ]

I think we are more on the same page than you are interpreting it.  You, rumborak, and I are all pointing out something different between Jesusian and Paulian teachings--Christ's emphasis of law, and Paul's emphasis of grace.  That's all I'm saying.  But we are no longer under the law, so a lot of things Christ taught are no longer "in effect" for lack of a better term.

[Philawallafox]

I think we are more on the same page than you are interpreting it.  You, rumborak, and I are all pointing out something different between Jesusian and Paulian teachings--Christ's emphasis of law, and Paul's emphasis of grace.  That's all I'm saying.  But we are no longer under the law, so a lot of things Christ taught are no longer "in effect" for lack of a better term.

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

looks to me like they flow pretty easily. Paul's theology of grace flows from Christ's fulfillment of the law.

[Ħ]

I don't think so.  Galatians makes it pretty clear that we are no longer under the law, which is difficult to reconcile to Christ's endorsement of making the law a priority.

[rumborak]

I think it's very interesting that in numerous cases Paul's statements are chosen over those of Jesus. I heard the other day the term that Paul is the "Second Founder of Christianity", and that rings very true.

rumborak