> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<some snippage>
> > > I really should add something more though. You
> > > say that the Christianity
> > > (which, like it or not IS based upon the
> > > teachings of Jesus)...
> > I think we have more Paul-anity, Augustine-anity,
> and
> > even Aquinis-anity than actual Jesus-anity; many
of
> > his messages were - and still are - quite radical:
> > Love your enemy? Break bread with society's
dregs?
> > Judge not lest ye be judged likewise?
> I find your quote interesting in that your sources
> for the views of Jesus
> are older than the Paul that you question...The
> oldest known fragment of
> those who considered Jesus the Christ is quoted in
> Philippians 2:6-11.
> So, the earliest testimony to Jesus is in Paul. The
> gospels are works that
> reflect the early Christian community's faith in
> Jesus; they are not directly attributable to Jesus.
But Paul never met Jesus (unless new scripts that I
haven't heard about have emerged from somewhere); the
Gospels purport to be accounts from eyewitnesses and
direct followers of Jesus. So I give more weight to
them than to one "inspired by" the Holy Spirit.
> One difficulty in trying to get to the historical
> Jesus is that, in
> stripping away early commentators, one often uses
> one's own views and
> feelings for what is original. Thus, one can
> appreciate Schweitzer's
> comment, that "a man does not so reveal himself as
> when he searches for the historical Jesus."
<smile> That sounds like a truism!
> The point of this is that, while one can obtain a
> good understanding of the
> Christian community from primary sources that were
> written before
> Augustine, the same cannot be said for the Christian
> community before Paul.
> They weren't Christians then, that is fairly
> evident; they were Jews who
> believed that the Messiah had come and the perusula
> was just around the
> corner. Being called Christians was post Paul. But,
> scholars differ
> greatly when the comb the literature we do have and
> try to pick out the remnants of early work.
Which is why I find those who claim "the Bible says
so!" as justification for their viewpoint silly. I
will be the first to admit that I pick and choose,
based on my own understanding and experience of what
it means to 'live a godly life,' but neither do I
claim that *my* POV is The Exclusive One And Only
Truth. <wry> Then there's the teeny fact that I'm
admittedly a heretic... ':}
> One final point, one also needs to be very careful
> in defining Paul, since
> only about half of the works attributed to him were
> written by him. The
> rest were written after he died.
One of the things I really liked about adult Sunday
School classes (back when I was a member of St. Paul
Lutheran!) was how the pastor(s) noted ambiguities,
uncertainties, cultural mores/biases of then and now,
and the difficulties of translation. 'We are called
to _find_out_ what this means for us today, and how we
ought to live our lives loving God and one another...'
This is anathema to those who want to have rules and
regulations dictated to & for them, because it means
that *we really don't know* exactly what Jesus (or
Buddha or Moses) said, did, or believed. For one
whose definition of 'a rock-solid foundation' means
absolute certainty, such questing is too terrifying to
contemplate.
FWIW, it was, in fact, one of the pastors I knew who
said that we really have 'Paulanity' rather than
'Jesus-anity.' (But the bit about "The Lord's Supper
Club" is my very own!) ;)
Debbi
Seek, And Ye Shall Find The Answer Is Often "That's A
Good Question..." Maru
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
